IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 RP.No. 802 of 2009(D) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.9873/2009 Dated 22/06/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER / NON PARTY : --------------------------------------------------- C A M TRANSPORTS, SHORANUR – 679 121 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR C.G.ABRAHAM. BY ADV. MR. P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR. P.DEEPAK RESPONDENTS / PETITIONER / RESPONDENT : ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.SAIDALAVI, CHEKKIDANKUZHI HOUSE, KALAMANGALAM, VALANCHERY, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. R1 BY ADV. MR. DINESH MENON R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.NANDA KUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: kkms/ V.GIRI, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = R. P. No. 802 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C).No.9873 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of September 2009. O R D E R This petition for review has been filed by the third party who was not in the party array when the writ petition was disposed on 22.06.2009. Petition for review has been filed after obtaining leave from this Court. 2. The case of the writ petitioner as is found to have been pleaded in the writ petition is that he was an applicant for the grant of a regular permit on the route Valancherry- Cheruppulassery. His application for regular permit was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority by Ext.P1 order. 3. The writ petitioner was later granted regular permit as per Ext.P4 subject to settlement of time. Ext.P4 in the writ petition (though described as otherwise in the body of the writ petition) is the extract of the proceedings of R.T.A. Palakkad held in 31.01.2005. The decision taken provided that regular permit may be granted to Stage Carriage KL-10 G 8281 subject to settlement of timings and subject to the final result of W.P.(C). No.279/2005. R. P. No. 802 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C).No.9873 OF 2009 2 4. It seems that W.P.(C).No.279/2005 filed by the review petitioner had been dismissed by judgment dated 11.07.2005 and the same was affirmed by the Division Bench by Ext.P7 judgment. The writ petitioner had further proceeded to submit that subsequent to Ext.P5 judgment, petitioner produced the vehicle KL-11 E 9817 for the purpose of the issuance of the permit as the earlier vehicle KL-10 G 8281 is not in existence. It is contended that the Secretary, R.T.A. insisted that unless the initial vehicle is produced, permit cannot be issued. It is therefore the writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the R.T.A. Palakkad to issue the permit on the route Valancherry- Cheruppulassery in respect of Stage Carriage KL-11 E 9817 in the place of Stage Carriage KL-10 G 8281, subject to settlement of timings. 5. The writ petition was disposed of observing that since regular permit is directed to be granted under Ext.P1, the respondent shall proceed to issue a permit pursuant to Ext.P4 within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The current records on the vehicle now offered by the petitioner were to be verified, provided they have been produced within time and permit was thereafter to be issued. R. P. No. 802 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C).No.9873 OF 2009 3 6. Review petition has been filed by an operator who incidentally was the petitioner in writ petition No.279/2005 contending that material facts were either misrepresented or not correctly represented before this Court by the writ petitioner. It is contended that timings were actually settled in relation to Stage Carriage No. KL-10 G 8281 as evidenced by Annexure-6, in the timing conference convened on 03.06.2006. Petitioner did not obtain a permit in spite of settlement of timings and thereafter petitioner produced a new vehicle. Review petitioner contends that the permit originally granted stood revoked under rule 159(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. This fact was suppressed and the writ petition was filed feigning ignorance as it were, of the timing conference convened on 03.06.2006 and the settlement of timings that took place at that point of time. 7. I had granted leave to the review petitioner and thereafter I had admitted the petition for review. The writ petitioner has filed a counter affidavit. 8. I heard counsel on both sides. It is a fact that the permit was directed to be granted vide Ext.P4 proceedings of the RTA Palakkad 31.01.2005. The Stage Carriage which the petitioner was then in possession of is KL-10 G 8281. There is a dispute as R. P. No. 802 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C).No.9873 OF 2009 4 to whether the timings were actually settled on 03.06.2006. I had proceeded on the premise that the case was one where a permit was granted as per 31.05.2005, but timings were not settled at any point of time so far, that subsequently the operator had produced a later model vehicle, but the R.T.A. continued to insist on the production of the current records of the vehicle mentioned in Ext.P4. 9. Different considerations, in the context of issuing a mandamus as sought for by the petitioner would have arisen if materials regarding the events which had taken subsequent to Ext.P4 were placed before me when I disposed of the writ petition. 10. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the review petitioner is bereft of the locus standi to take up the contention that the permit originally granted stood revoked by 159(2) of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules by non production of the current records of the vehicle. He relies on the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.890/2009. This may be so, but when the petitioner had approached this Court seeking a direction to the Secretary, R.T.A. to issue a permit after considering the current records of the vehicle offered in replacement. I had proceeded R. P. No. 802 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C).No.9873 OF 2009 5 on the assumption that a settlement of time had not taken place and permit was not even ready to be issued by the competent authority in spite of Ext.P4 issued on 31.01.2005. The reasons, if any, which stood in the way of the Secretary, R.T.A. not issuing the permit in spite of the grant of regular permit on 30.01.2005 were not matters that were pleaded or considered. 11. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the judgment dated 22.06.2009 ought to be reviewed. 12. Accordingly the judgment dated 22.06.2009 is set aside and the review petition is allowed. I am passing separate orders in the writ petition. (V.GIRI) JUDGE kkms/