IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 RP.No. 833 of 2010(U) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.5970/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------------ SUNDERASAN PILLAI, GIRISH NIVAS, KOTTANKARA, CHANDANATHOPE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, QUILON AUTOMOBILE EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.797, KADAMPANAD, ADOOR. 2. THE SECRETARY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.DINESH MENON THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ R.P.NO: 833 OF 2010 IN W.P(C) NO: 5970 OF 2010 U ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th September, 2010. O R D E R This review petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to review the judgment dated 18/3/2010 in W.P(C) 5970/2010. The petitioner was not a party to the writ petition but has filed this review petition after obtaining leave from the Court. 2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner in the writ petition was not an aggrieved person for the reason that he was conducting services only along a very short portion of the route over which the petitioner is conducting services. The petitioner's services have been in existence for a long period of time and was not a newly introduced one as stated in the writ petition. However, it is contended that the petitioner had filed the writ petition seeking to revise the timings of the petitioner, without making him a party thereto. It is also contended that the writ petitioner is not operating with timings which are anywhere close to that of the petitioner's. The petitioner complains that pursuant to the judgment that is sought to be reviewed the Regional Transport Authority, Pathanamthitta has issued a direction to the Secretary to RP 833/2010 in WPC 5970/2010 2 reset the timings of the petitioner by convening a timing conference, which is scheduled to be conducted on 15/9/2010, that is today. However, when this matter was taken up it is conceded by all parties that the timing conference has been postponed. According to the counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the directions contained in the judgment that is sought to be reviewed to which he was not a party, his timings are sought to be revised. Therefore, he seeks a review of the judgment. 3. The counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner denies the allegations made in the review petition. According to the counsel, what was sought for in the writ petition was only the issue of appropriate directions to maintain parity in running time between the services of the writ petitioner and the review petitioner. According to him, no attempt was made to seek a revision of the timings with which the services are being operated by the review petitioner. Since the review petitioner was operating his services with a running time that was different from that of the writ petitioners, he had only sought for a rectification of the disparity. The other allegations of the review petitioner are also denied. I have heard the learned senior Govt. Pleader also. 4. Though various averments were made in the writ petition to which strong objections are taken by the counsel for the review RP 833/2010 in WPC 5970/2010 3 petitioner, I notice from the judgment sought to be reviewed that those contentions have not been taken into account while issuing the directions in the judgment. The directions in the judgment have been issued on the basis of a submission made by the learned Govt. Pleader to the effect that the request submitted by the writ petitioner to the Secretary, RTA, Pathanamthitta would be placed before the next meeting of the Regional Transport Authority (RTA for short). In view of the above submission, the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent to place the request of the petitioner before the next meeting of the RTA and further directing the RTA to pass orders thereon in accordance with law. In view of the fact that the contentions in the writ petition were not directed or adjudicated upon, no right of the review petitioner has been prejudicially affected by the judgment that is sought to be reviewed. The RTA, Pathanamthitta was only directed to consider the request of the petitioner in accordance with law. 5. It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that though the direction of this Court was innocuous, the matter had been considered by the last meeting of the RTA, Pathanamthitta and a direction has been issued to the Secretary, RTA to reset the timings of the petitioner with a running time of 2.5 minutes per kilometer in all trips so as to avoid disparity by convening a timing RP 833/2010 in WPC 5970/2010 4 conference. It is contended that the Secretary would only comply with the directions of the RTA and that in the process the petitioner has been denied an opportunity to place his objections to the said proposal. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said proceedings of the RTA, a copy of which was made available to me by the counsel, it is open to the review petitioner to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. It is also open to him to contend that the said proceedings are not in conformity with the directions in the judgment of this Court. I am not satisfied that the judgment that is sought to be reviewed, suffers from any infirmity that requires rectification or correction in exercise of the power of review. 6. For the foregoing reasons this review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. At the same time, I leave open the rights of the review petitioner to challenge the proceedings of the RTA, Pathanamthitta in appropriate proceedings to be instituted by him, if so advised. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj RP 833/2010 in WPC 5970/2010 5