IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 RP.No. 109 of 2011(F) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.32859/2010 Dated 09/11/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER: ---------------------- M.P. PRADEEPAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O GOVINDAN, MAYILAKKOOTT PARAMBA P.O., KANNANKARA, VIA CHELANNOOR KOZHIKODE BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FAYAZ RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. E.K. ABOOBACKER, NELLIPOYIL HOUSE, PARANNUR P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673020 2. SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOZHIKODE 673 020 3. SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY VADAKARA - 673103 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K. RAMESH FOR R2 SRI.P.SAMSUDIN FOR R-1 V. RAJENDRAN, STANDING COUNSEL THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP.No. 109 of 2011(F) APPENDIX REVIEW PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE I: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 32859/2010 DATED 9.11.2010 ANNEXURE II: PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO.6653/2006 ANNEXURE III: PHOTOCOPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.11.2010 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(A): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.4.2007 EXT.R2(B): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18.9.2010 //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE jma C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Review Petition No.109 of 2011 and W.P.(C) No. 32859 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011 O R D E R /J U D G M E N T The review petitioner was not a party to WP(c) No.32859 of 2010 which was disposed of by this Court as per judgment dated 9.11.2010. The said writ petition was filed by the first respondent in this review petition. It was contended in the said writ petition that the timings in respect of his vehicle bearing registration No.KL11/T 4849 settled as per Ext.P1 required modification in the light of the modification made as per Exts.P2 and P3. According to the writ petitioner he was not able to operate on the route in question on account of the failure on the part of the concerned authority to issue a consolidated time schedule taking note of Exts.P2 and P3. It is further contended therein that for redressing the said grievance he had submitted Ext.P4 before the first respondent therein viz., the second respondent in this review petition. However, no decision was taken thereon. It was in the said circumstances that the said writ petition was filed. Taking RP.No.109/2011& W.P(C) No.32859/2010 : 2 : note of the contentions that the timings settled as per Ext.P1 was modified as per Exts.P2 and P3 and Ext.P4 revision petition submitted for issuance of consolidated timings was not acted upon this court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the first respondent therein to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 submitted by the writ petitioner therein so as to enable him to operate on the same route. 2. The judgment dated 9.11.2010 is sought to be reviewed on the ground that the writ petitioner therein had not brought to the notice of this Court certain crucial aspects. It is submitted that though the timings as per Ext.P1 was modified as per Ext.P3 the same was challenged by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner in WP(C) No.6653/2006. That writ petition was disposed of as per Annexure II judgment dated 11.8.2006. Ext.P3 herein stood quashed by this Court. The order of S.T.A.T affirming Ext.P3 order was also set aside. After quashing Ext.P3(Ext.P3 in this writ petition) and Ext.P6 therein, the second respondent therein viz., the Secretary, RTA, Kozhikode was directed to consider the objection filed by the petitioner therein regarding the modification of the time schedule of the 3rd respondent's vehicle, with notice to the affected parties RP.No.109/2011& W.P(C) No.32859/2010 : 3 : within the time limit stipulated thereunder. It is submitted that the fact that Ext.P3 was set aside by this Court in WP(C) No.6653/2006 was not brought to the notice of this Court. If the order of this Court in WP(C) No.6653/2006 was brought to this Court, W.P(C) No.32859 of 2010 would not have been disposed in the manner it was disposed of as per judgment dated 9.11.2010, it is submitted. It is in the said context that the review petitioner seeks review of the judgment dated 9.11.2010. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner, the learned counsel for the first respondent in the review petition viz., the writ petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the first respondent herein submits that the first respondent/writ petitioner was absolutely unaware of the fact that Ext.P3 was set aside by this Court as per judgment in WP(C) No.6653/2006. The learned Government Pleader submits that though in terms of Annexure II judgment the Secretary RTA Kozhikode was bound to consider the objection of the petitioner therein regarding the modification of the time schedule in respect of his vehicle the direction in the said judgment was not yet implemented within the time limit RP.No.109/2011& W.P(C) No.32859/2010 : 4 : stipulated thereunder. Though the lethargic attitude of the concerned authority in implementing the directions in a judgment cannot be appreciated by this Court, in the facts and circumstances of this case I am inclined to recall the judgment dated 9.11.2010 in W.P(C) No.32859/2010 for the reason that Ext.P3 order based on which a fresh decision was directed to be taken was already quashed by this Court at the instance of the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioner and that fact was not brought to the notice of this Court, at the time of disposal of W.P(C) No.32859/2010 on 9.11.2010. It was in the said circumstances that this Court happened to make an observation in the judgment dated 9.11.2010 that time in respect of the petitioner's vehicle was modified in terms of Exts.P2 and P3. Accordingly, judgment dated 9.11.2010 is recalled. Having heard the learned counsel on all sides and taking into account the aforesaid admitted position I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition. If any order has been passed pursuant to the judgment dated 9.11.2010 on Ext.P4 representation taking note of Ext.P3 modification the first respondent shall recall the said order in the light of the judgment in W.P(C) No.6653/2006 and reconsider Ext.P4 representation without looking into the RP.No.109/2011& W.P(C) No.32859/2010 : 5 : modification in Ext.P3 as, in the light of Annexure II judgment Ext.P3 cannot be said to be in existence. Therefore, that cannot be taken into consideration at all for the purpose of consideration of Ext.P4. At the same time, the first respondent is also bound to consider the directions in Annexure II. In the said circumstances, a fresh decision on Ext.P4 representation taking into account the directions in Annexure II shall be taken expeditiously with notice to the petitioner and also the review petitioner and any other operator/operators on the route likely to be effected. At any rate, this shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Till such a decision is taken as per the directions in Annexure II judgment, the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.32859/2010 shall be permitted to operate the vehicle bearing registration No.KL 11/T 4849 in terms of the directions in Annexure II judgment. This writ petition is disposed of ad above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma