IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 740 of 2009(I) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.24865/2007 DATED 10/09/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): NOT A PARTY IN THE OP: -------------------------------------------- SABU KURIAN, CHUMAPUMKAL, POOVARANI P.O., PAIKA. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- 1. JOY SEBASTIAN, KAVALAKKATTU VEEDU, EZHACHERRY P.O., RAMAPURAM. 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.M.A.FAYAZ FOR R1 MR.K.RAMESH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2009, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.24865/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- R.P.No.740 of 2009 in W.P.(C.) No.24865 of 2007 & W.P.(C.) No.24865 of 2007 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 14th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 10/09/2007 directing consideration of Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner for revision of his own timings. The judgment was rendered at the admission stage, acting upon the averment in the writ petition that the writ petitioner is the permit holder of stage carriage bearing Regn.No.KL-35/799, and that it was in that capacity, he made Ext.P4 application for revision of timings. 2. In this review petition, it is pointed out that though the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question, the vehicle was leased out to one Mr.Noble K.Mathew, and that it was Mr.Noble K.Mathew, who had obtained permit and timings from the authorities. Only the permit holder could have applied for revision of timings, and for that reason, Ext.P4 application was not maintainable. If that be so, this Court committed an error in directing disposal of Ext.P4. R.P.No.740/2009 in WP(C) No.24865/2007 & WP(C) No.24865/2007 -2- 3. Now that as it was found that Ext.P4 application for revision submitted was not maintainable, the judgment is reviewed, and the writ petition is dismissed. 4. However, it is clarified that this judgment will not stand in the way of Shri.Noble K.Mathew to pursue for revision of timings, if he so desires. The review petition is allowed as above, and the writ petition is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg