IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 RP.No. 954 of 2008(P) -------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.19251/2008 Dated 10/07/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA, REP. BY SECRETARY. 3. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.M. MOHANAN, S/O.P.K. VASU, KUTTIYILPUTHEN VEEDU, MAMPRA.P.O, RANNY, PERUNADU. 2. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT COPRORATION, CHENGANNUR. R1 BY ADV. SHRI O.D. SIVADAS GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.P.NO.954 OF 2008 IN W.P.C. NO. 19251 OF 2008 P -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th February, 2009 ORDER I heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. While rejecting the main contention of the petitioner based on the absence of a Permit, taking note of the issuance of temporary Permits, acting on the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there must be a timing conference in relation to the temporary permits, a direction was issued. In the Review Petition, it is pointed out that as per Rule 212 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, the provision does not apply to the vehicles run by the KSRTC. There is a ruling each from either side which appear to be at variance from one another. They are the Judgment in O.P.No.5609/83 dated 8.1.1985 and the reported decision in Haridas v. KSRTC (1990 (1) KLT 708). In this view of the matter, I think that in the state of the law, I need not consider RP.954/08 IN WPC.19251/08P 2 the case of the review petitioners. Apparently, the unreported decision relied on by the writ petitioner supports the view taken by me. Therefore, I see no merit in the Review Petition and it is dismissed. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge