IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 RP.No. 975 of 2010(Y) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.14194/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------------- P.REMADEVI. W/O.K.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT POUNAMI, H/NO/IX/262, P.O.EDANEER CHENGALA, KASARAGOD.670 121. BY ADVS. SRI.A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ SRI.RENJIT GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER KASARAGOD. 670 121. 2. TAHSILDAR (RR) KASARAGOD. 670 121 3. TOJI ABRAHAM, S/O.ABRAHAM, KALLAR RAJAPURAM PO, VIA ANANDASRAM,KANHANDGAD, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD. 670 121. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ R.P No. 975 OF 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 19th day of November, 2010 ORDER This Petition has been filed seeking to review the judgment dated 06.08.2010 in W.P. (C) No. 14194 of 2010, whereby interference was declined on merits, however, permitting the petitioner to satisfy the liability by way of installments. 2. The basic issue involved in the writ petition was whether the writ petitioner could be proceeded against, in respect of the liability towards the arrears payable under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, in respect of the vehicle bearing No. KL14 B 772 which was stated as transferred to the 3rd respondent, allegedly by way of exchange, whereby the vehicle owned by the 3rd respondent bearing No. KL 14 B 1440 was purchased by the petitioner, as borne by Ext. P1. The case of the writ petitioner was that, even though the ownership of the vehicle bearing No. KL 14 B 1440 was changed in the name of the petitioner, the ownership of the vehicle which is stated as sold to the third respondent was not caused to be endorsed in the name of the 3rd respondent, who in turn committed default with regard to the payment of the tax in respect of the said vehicle, leading to coercive proceedings for realization of tax arrears of the said vehicle, which was R.P. 975 of 2010 2 subjected to challenge in the above writ petition. 3. After considering the merits of the case and also taking note of the undisputed fact that, the writ petitioner continued to be the 'registered owner' of the vehicle bearing No. KL14 B 7772, by virtue of the mandate under Section 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, the liability still continued with the registered owner, who was very much liable to clear the tax arrears. It was in the said circumstances, the said writ petition was disposed of, as per the judgment in question, which is sought to be reviewed. 4. The review petition is filed on 'three grounds', which are extracted below. A. If the judgment is not reviewed, it will cause irreparable loss, injury and hardships to the review petitioner. B. This Hon'ble Court has not considered the facts and merits of the case while passing the judgment. C. The review is highly necessary in the interest of justice for the fair disposal of the Writ Petition. Going by the grounds raised in support of the review petition, it is obvious that, absolutely no tenable ground has been raised, so as to invoke the power of review; more so since there is 'no error apparent on the face of records'. The review petition is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd