IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 RP.No. 368 of 2010(K) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.4110/2010 Dated 01/03/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------ THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THRISSUR. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------- E.V.SHAJAN, EDATHARA HOUSE, THANIPADAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI. I.DINESH MENON THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ R.P.NO: 368 OF 2010 IN W.P(C) NO: 4110 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st May, 2010. O R D E R Admit. Adv. I.Dinesh Menon appears for the respondent. I have heard the learned senior Govt. Pleader Shri. K.C.Santhosh Kumar as well as the counsel for the respondent. 2. W.P(C) 4110/2010 was filed by the respondent complaining that an application for replacement of his vehicle filed by him was not being disposed of. According to the respondent, he had been directed to produce the registration particulars of his old vehicle which according to him was unnecessary for the purpose of granting a replacement. After hearing the parties the writ petition was disposed of by the judgment that is sought to be reviewed directing that final orders be passed on the respondent's application within a period of one month from the date of the judgment. 3. According to the petitioner in the review petition, the respondent herein had been issued with a regular permit which was valid up to 8/4/2010. He was conducting services with a vehicle bearing registration No: KL-8A 2100. Since his vehicle was R.P.NO368/2010 in WPC 4110/2110 2 completing 15 years of age on 18/2/2006, his permit was issued with a specific condition that the vehicle should be replaced on or before 18/2/2006. However, the respondent did not replace the vehicle within the time stipulated. Subsequently though he had submitted an application for replacement, the same was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority on 16/8/2006. However, he had been operating on the strength of a temporary permit with a new vehicle bearing registration No: KL 8 AH 7667. Since the old vehicle was not capable of being operated and the same has not been replaced with the new vehicle, his permit was cancelled on 9/6/2009. The respondent has filed MVAA 377/2009 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT for short), which is pending. The STAT has also granted an interim stay of cancellation of the permit, which order is also in operation. 4. According to the petitioner in the review petition, the respondent has suppressed the fact that MVAA 377/2009 was still pending. Since the validity of the basic permit is pending consideration of the STAT, it is submitted that the question of replacement of his vehicle could be considered only after the final disposal of MVAA 377/2009. Therefore, the review petitioner seeks a review of the direction in the judgment dated 1/3/2010 in W.P(C) R.P.NO368/2010 in WPC 4110/2110 3 4110/2010 and a modification of the direction to consider and dispose of his application for replacement within a period of one month from the date of the said judgment. 5. Since the validity of the basic permit of the respondent itself is the subject matter of MVAA 377/2009 which is pending before the STAT, the same was certainly a relevant fact which should have been disclosed in the writ petition. The omission to state the above fact cannot be considered to be trivial. The omission to state the said fact has led this Court into passing an order and issuing a direction to dispose of the respondent's application for replacement within one month. The counsel for the respondent also owed a duty to point out the said fact to this Court at the time when the writ petition was finally disposed of. The conduct of the respondent as well as the counsel is taken serious note of. The counsel has tendered his unconditional apology for the omission. The apology is accepted and, in the circumstances, no further action is contemplated. 6. As already noted above, since the validity of the basic permit of the respondent is pending consideration of the STAT, the application for replacement of his vehicle need be considered by the petitioner in this Review Petition only after MVAA 377/2009 is R.P.NO368/2010 in WPC 4110/2110 4 finally disposed of. The direction in the judgment that has been issued to the petitioner herein, is therefore vacated and the writ petition is dismissed. This review petition is allowed as indicated above. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj R.P.NO368/2010 in WPC 4110/2110 5