IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 RP.No. 1167 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.1724/2009 Dated 29/09/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/ADDL.4TH RESPONDENT: ---------------------- ALL KERALA TANK LORRY OWNERS AND OPERATORS WELFARE FEDERATION, REG. NO. ER/465/09, ADAM SQUARE, DOOR NO.110, ALUVA ROAD, ANGAMALY, PIN 683 572, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SRI. E.M. JOLLY. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN NUMPELI (JUNIOR) SRI.P.V.PAULSON RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: --------------- 1. THRISSUR DIST, PETOLEUM DEALERS ASSOCIATION, IST FLOOR, N.P. COMPLEX, MANNATH LANE, M.G. ROAD, THRISSUR-1, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ANTOS C.D. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ,MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR INSTALLATION MANAGER, IRIMPANAM P.O., KOCHI, PIN 682 309. ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.P.DEEPAK FOR R1 SMT.APARNA RAJAN FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN - R2 & R3 SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR - R4. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------ R.P.No.1167/2009 in W.A.No.1724/2009 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 11th day of February, 2010 Order Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner has moved this Review Petition, pointing out certain errors apparent on the face of the record in the judgment under review. While rendering the judgment, we stated that Rule 90(1) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules was framed by the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 110(1)(l) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The learned counsel for the review petitioner brought to our notice that in fact, it was a rule framed under Section 88(14)(b)(iv) of the Act. Further, we observed that Section 110(3) authorises the Central Government to relax any of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. But, the learned counsel pointed out that the said sub- RP No.1167/2009 - 2 - section authorises only relaxing the provisions in Chapter VII of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 2. In the judgment under review we made an observation that Rule 304 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 has been made without authority. But, the learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent brought to our notice Section 96(2)(xviii) of the Act, which, in fact, authorises framing of a rule in the nature of Rule 304 of the Kerala Rules. 3. We think, the above illegalities pointed out in our judgment require to be corrected, as they are errors apparent on the face of the record, especially in view of the fact that the said decision has already been reported. Therefore, the judgment under review is recalled. Post the Writ Appeal and the connected Writ Petition for hearing. The Registry may post the cases before the appropriate Bench as per the roster. RP No.1167/2009 - 3 - The Review Petition is allowed as above. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.Bhavadasan, Judge. nm.