IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 RP.No. 654 of 2008(P) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.11910/2008 Dated 11/06/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER /PETITIONER: ----------------- SHEEJA THOMAS, THAKADEYELIPARAMBIL CHANANIKAD, KOTTAYAM BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TTRANSPORT AUTHORITY/REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER KOTTAYAM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- R.P. 654/2008 IN W.P.(C) 11910 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: AUGUST 12, 2008 ORDER The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 11th June, 2008, recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader that following Ext.P3, the RTA considered the matter on 7.2.2008 and that despite the direction requiring the petitioner to produce the current records, petitioner had not produced the same. Producing Annexures A1 to A7 this review petition is filed by the petitioner contending that the submission made on behalf of the respondent was factually incorrect. 2. Today, on instructions, though the learned Government Pleader tells me that none of those communications was received by the respondent, factually I am not satisfied that the said submission is correct. This is for the reason that Annexures A6 and A7 are none other R.P. 654/2008 IN W.P.(C) 11910 of 2008 2 than the communications issued by the respondent itself, both of which make reference to Annexure A2. Evidently, therefore, Ext.A2 has been received and Exts.A6 and A7 acknowledge the same. 3. If that be so, the submission, on the basis of which the writ petition was disposed of, is factually incorrect and for that reason the judgment is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record. I am satisfied that the review petition deserves to be allowed. Review petition is allowed and the judgment is accordingly recalled. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-