IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 981 of 2004(L) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.21533/2004 Dated 11/10/2004 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): REVIEW PETITIONER --------------------------------------- 1. K.P.HUSSAIN, SECRETARY, TAXI DRIVERS UNION (STU), CALICUT AIRPORT UNIT, CALICUT AIRPORT PO. 2. HANEEFA.P., SECRETARY, TAXI DRIVERS UNION (INTUC), CALICUT AIRPORT UNIT, CALICUT AIRPORT P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.P.AHAMMED, S/O.HASSAN, AGED 25 YEARS, KUMMINIPPARA HOUSE, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DIST. 4. THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR, CALICUT AIRPORT, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. THE TAXI DRIVERS UNION (CITU), CALICUT AIRPORT UNIT. ADV. SRI.BABU S.NAIR SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN FOR R1 SR GP MR.LAKSHMI NARAYAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ IA NO.338/09 in RP 981/04 & RP NO.981 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 28th July 2009 Order RAMAN, J. IA No.338/09 This is an application filed by M/s.K.C.Abdul Kareem and Haneefa.P., praying to substitute the first petitioner herein as the first petitioner in the Review Petition, in the interest of justice. In this application, however, the review petitioners are not made parties. Therefore, whether the review petitioners are still interested in continuing the RP, cannot be inferred without hearing them. Further, since the petitioners herein are not parties in the Writ Petition, without seeking leave, the question of filing an RP with third parties in the party array, does not arise. For all the above reasons, this IA is dismissed. RP No.981 of 2004 The petitioners who are respondents 5 and 6 in the Writ Petition, seek to review the judgment in WP(C) No.21533/04. This court, by judgment dated 11.10.2004, ordered that in view RP 981/04 2 of the interim order passed by this court on 6.8.2004, no further orders are necessary and that the parties will abide by the interim order. According to the petitioners, they did not receive notice before the final judgment was rendered and so, they seek to review the judgment. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners. It is contended by the learned counsel that at the time when the Writ Petition was filed and the judgment was rendered, the first respondent herein was a licensee for running a pre-paid taxi in the air port and as per the terms and conditions of the licence so issued, according to the review petitioners, he has to pay the requisite charges, as all the taxi drivers operating under the pre- paid taxi scheme, have to contribute proportionately to the licensee. But the first respondent herein is not making any contribution and so, he cannot be allowed to operate pre-paid taxis in the airport, without paying the proportionate contribution to the licensee. Incidentally, it is pointed out that the car does not belong to the first respondent, but he is only a driver. RP 981/04 3 3. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents also. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the 1st respondent, producing copy of the RC book, which would clearly show that the said respondent is the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, this point is decided against the review petitioners. 4. As regards the contribution, the first respondent is readily agreeable to pay the requisite contribution to be made, as in the case of others. If so, whoever be the present licensee, the first respondent in the Review Petition will pay the requisite charges/contribution to the licensee with effect from 1st August 2009, against which receipt will be issued to him. The Review Petition is thus allowed, modifying the judgment under review, to the extent that police protection will be afforded to the first respondent, subject to his liability to pay the requisite charges/contribution to the licensee as directed above. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta RP 981/04 4 RP 981/04 5