IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 OP.No. 23087 of 1997(W) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. M.R.VENU, MANAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLATHERY HOUSE, MATTATHURKUNNU 2. P.G.RADHAKRISHNAN, PALLATHERY HOUSE, MATTATHURKUNNU. BY ADV. MR.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRISSUR. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. ARAINDA KUMAR BABU T.K. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... R.P.No. 194 of 1998 in O.P. No. 23087 of 1997 ................................................. Dated this the 10th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The State seeks review of the judgment of this Court dated 30.12.1997 in O.P. No. 23087 of 1997. The judgment reads thus: “ The first petitioner is a registered owner of a stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No. KDE 4282. The vehicle is covered by a valid permit. He wants the vehicle to be transferred to the second petitioner. A joint application for transfer of the vehicle was filed by the petitioners 1 and 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that Ext.P1 has not been disposed of so far. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the respondents to consider and dispose of Ext.P1 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The original petition is disposed of as above.” The review petition is filed on the ground that no joint application was submitted as stated by the petitioner in the original petition and therefore no application could be considered as directed in the judgment. It is further submitted that the vehicle in question was operating on the basis of a temporary permit and there is no question of transfer of a temporary permit. It is further stated that on a perusal of the R.P.No. 194 of 1998 in O.P. No. 23087 of 1997 -2- records, an amount of Rs.71,820/- is due from the 1st respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle towards tax arrears without clearing which no application for transfer could have been entertained, even if filed. The counsel for the petitioner in the original petition has not chosen to dispute the averments in the review petition. That being so, the averments stands uncontroverted and therefore the review petition is only to be allowed. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed, the judgment under review is recalled and the original petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs