IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 21ST MAGHA 1932 RP.No. 69 of 2011(Y) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.25033/2009 Dated 07/09/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 3RD RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------------- MOHAMMED ABDULLA, S/O.ABDULLA HAJI, RESIDING AT MUMTHUS MANZIL, NEDUVA AMSOM, PARAPPANGANGADI TALUK,MALAPPURAM DIST,REP.BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MOHAMMED SIRAJ BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/ RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MOHAMMEDALI HAJI, KUTTIYIL HOUSE,PANTHARANGADI,VIA THIRURANGADI MALAPPURAM DIST,PIN-676505 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MALAPPURAM,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY PIN-676505 3. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MALAPPURAM-676505 R1 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------------- R.P. No.69 of 2011 in WP(C) No.25033 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT This review petition is filed against the judgment dated 07.09.2010 in WP(C) No.25033/09. As per the judgment impugned the order viz., Exhibit P6 was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam for fresh consideration of M.V.A.R.P. No.114/08 in accordance with law. I have carefully considered the grounds raised in the review petition, as grounds A to J. The grounds raised as A to J do not bring out any ground for invoking the review jurisdiction of this Court. In fact, they did not bring out the error that is apparent on the face of the record warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. The pleadings in the review petition would suggest that the attempt on part of the review petitioner is for getting the judgment re-written which is not permissible under the review jurisdiction. In the said R.P. No.69 of 2011 in WP(C) No.25033 of 2009 2 circumstances, I am of the view that there is no merit in the review petition. Accordingly this review petition is dismissed. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. rkc