IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 29 of 2011(B) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.35620/2010 Dated 06/12/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT IN WPC --------------------------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.(RURAL AT ATTINGAL) PIN-685101. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN WPC -------------------------------- THE SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NOW T.783, ATTINGAL. R1 BY SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jkk C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P No.29 of 2011 in W.P(C) No. 35620 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011 O R D E R The respondent in WPCNo.35620/2010 is the review petitioner. As per the judgment in WPCNo.35620/2010 this Court directed the respondent to take appropriate steps for endorsing the renewal of permit in the permit of vehicle bearing registration No.KL-01/F 6954 expeditiously, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. Such a direction was issued taking note of the fact that pursuant to the directions in MVAA No.682/2002 by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal the Regional Transport Authority considered the question of renewal and granted the same. In the light of section l31 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, the Secretary to Regional Transport Authority has to give effect to the decision of the Regional Transport Authority. In fact, it is taking note of the aforesaid position that this Court issued the above mentioned directions. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader and also RP No.29/2011 2 the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in this review petition. I have carefully considered the grounds raised in this review petition. Having heard the learned Government Pleader and also having gone through the grounds raised, I am of the considered view that the review petitioner has failed to bring out the error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference under the review jurisdiction. It is a settled position of law that a judgment cannot be re-written invoking the review jurisdiction. In view of the said position obtained in this review petition, there is no merit in this review petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE jma //true copy// P.A to Judge