IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 RP.No. 184 of 2010(K) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.33945/2009 Dated 08/01/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER: --------------------------------- P.A.PUNNOOSE, PUTHENPARAMBIL, VAKATHANAM, CHANGANASSERY. BY ADV. MR.M.A.FAYAZ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, REP.BY SECRETARY. 2. SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.REMANI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- R.P.No.184 of 2010 in W.P.(C)No.33945 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated 1st March, 2010 ORDER Heard Sri.M.A.Fayaz, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner and Smt.T.B.Remani, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The learned counsel on both sides submitted that the application for temporary permit of four months' duration was rejected on 9.2.2010 on the ground that the scheme has been finalised by Government order dated 14.7.2009 and that there is overlapping on certain sections of the route in which the petitioner was formerly operating. The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner submitted that aggrieved by the order passed by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam dated 9.2.2010 rejecting his application for temporary permit, the review petitioner has filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. The learned counsel for the review petitioner also submitted that it is in view of the second direction issued by this Court in the judgment delivered on 8.1.2010 in W.P.(C)No.33945 of 2009 that the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam has rejected the application for temporary permit on the short ground that the scheme has been R.P.184/2010 in WP(C).33945/2009 2 finalised, without considering the applicability of section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He also submitted that even after the writ petition was disposed of, a temporary permit of 20 days' duration evidenced by Annexure I was issued on 13.1.2010 covering the period from 17.1.2010 to 5.2.2010. The review petitioner submits that in such circumstances, the words “if the scheme has not been finalised” in the second direction issued in the judgment delivered on 8.1.2010 in W.P.(C)No33945 of 2009 may be deleted. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that as the petitioner has invoked the appellate remedy, he should pursue such remedy instead of seeking a review of the judgment of this Court and that the judgment of this Court does not require to be reviewed or modified. 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides. On going through the pleadings and after hearing the submissions made at the Bar and also Ext.P3 judgment of this Court in an earlier writ petition, I am of the opinion that this Court did not mean to curtail the right of the petitioner to apply for and obtain temporary permits pending disposal of his application for a regular permit. I am therefore of the opinion that the words “if the scheme has not been finalised” occurring in the second direction issued R.P.184/2010 in WP(C).33945/2009 3 by this Court in the judgment delivered on 18.1.2010 in W.P.(C) No.33945 of 2009 requires to be deleted. The second direction shall read as follows: “(ii) The second respondent shall issue temporary permits of four months' duration to the petitioner, till such time as final orders are passed on the petitioner's application for a regular permit, on the petitioner paying the requisite fee and submitting the requisite application.” The review petition is allowed in the manner indicated above with the further observation that on the petitioner filing a fresh application for temporary permit, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS