IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RP.No. 1249 of 2008(K) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.23207/2008 Dated 03/09/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/THIRD PARTY ------------------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SMT.V.P.SUKUMARI, VALIYAPARAMBIL, NADAKKAVU P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. SMT.MARIAMMA THOMAS KUMBALAMTHANATHU HOUSE, AYARKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. 5. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. SRI.P.DEEPAK THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== R.P.No.1249 OF 2008 IN W.P.(C) NO. 23207 OF 2008 ==================== Dated this the 26th day of November, 2008 O R D E R The KSRTC has filed the review petition. By judgment dated 3rd September, 2008, this Court directed implementation of Exts.P4 and P4(a) subject to counter signature. According to the counsel for the KSRTC though they had filed a writ petition challenging Exts. P4 and P4(a), that writ petition was rejected by this Court by Annexure A8 judgment taking the view that in view of the directions in the judgment under review, the merits of challenge cannot be gone into. It is stated that since they were not parties to the judgment under review, the KSRTC could not point out the illegalities involved. 2. Be that as it may, now that the contention raised by the counsel for the KSRTC is that in view of the directions in the judgment under review, they are not in a position to even seek their remedies against Exts. P4 and P4(a), it is clarified that the judgment and the RP 1249/08 :2 : directions therein will not stand in the way of the KSRTC from seeking remedies that are available to them against Exts. P4 and P4(a) and in case correctness of Exts. P4 and P4(a) is challenged, the same will be examined untramelled by the said judgment. Review petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp