IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 792 of 2009(V) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.19411/2009 Dated 14/07/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ADDITTIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------ G.PRIDHVIPAL, VILAKKATTUKOYIKKAL PANANGADU.P.O., (VIA) KULANADA, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADV. MR. K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- 1. SHINE RAJ.S., NANDANAM, PANNIYALIL, OMALLUR, PATHANMTHITTA. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PATHANMTHITTA. R1 BY ADV. MR. O.D. SIVADAS R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.K. BABU THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ R.P. No. 792 of 2009 in W.P. (C) No. 19411 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this 13th the day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The review petitioner is seeking to review the judgment dated 14.7.2009 passed by this Court in WP (C )19411 of 2009, stating that, the Writ Petitioner had approached this Court without impleading the R.C. owner or the review petitioner from whom the concerned vehicle was purchased by the writ petitioner. It is stated that, the terms and conditions as given in Ext.P4 agreement dated 11.3.2009 have not been fulfilled by the writ petitioner and in the said circumstance, the writ petitioner is not entitled to operate the vehicle. 2. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that, the review petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP (C) 22382 of 2009, where interference was declined stating that, the petitioner could very well seek a review of the judgment dated 14.7.09, if there was any suppression of facts or if any prejudice was caused to the review petitioner because of the said verdict. 3. The learned counsel for the review petitioner further submits that, eventhough there was a specific direction given by this Court to accept the tax from the review petitioner, on production of the original RC book by the additional second respondent and to effect necessary R.P. No. 792 of 2009 in WP (C) No. 19411 of 2009 : 2 : entires therein, the RC book was not produced by the additional second respondent, despite which the the tax was accepted by the first respondent and the Writ Petitioner is operating the vehicle bearing No. KL 3 M 4473, causing substantial loss and prejudice to the review petitioner. 4. Heard both the sides including the learned counsel for the writ petitioner (first respondent in review petition) and also the senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the departmental authorities. 5. The only issue considered by this Court, while passing the judgment in WP (C) 19411 of 2009 was as to the refusal on the part of the departmental authorities in accepting the tax payable pertaining to the concerned vehicle and no fact adjudication was made with regard to the relative rights and liberties of the owner of the vehicle, financier or anybody else. The direction given by this Court, as per the judgment dated 14.7.2009 obviously does not mean or refer to any declaration of right of the Writ Petitioner to operate the vehicle or as to the rights and interests of anybody else to be adversely effected by virtue of the same. 6. This being the position, there is absolutely 'no error apparent on the face of the records' to sustain a review and hence no interference is called for, particularly in view of the law declared by the R.P. No. 792 of 2009 in WP (C) No. 19411 of 2009 : 3 : Apex Court in Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhari's case reported in AIR 1995 SC 455,. 7. The learned counsel for the first respondent in the review petition (writ petitioner) submits that, the RC owner of the vehicle is one Mr. Sadasivan Pillai, from whom the vehicle was purchased by the review petitioner as per agreement dated 26.8.2008, which in turn was subsequently purchased by the Writ Petitioner as per Ext.P4 agreement dated 11.3.2009. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, out of the total sale consideration, a sum of Rs. 2.15 lakhs was to be paid by the writ petitioner in cash, besides the liability towards the financier. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was already paid, followed by another sum of Rs.50,000/ and that the balance payable in cash is only Rs.65,000/-. The correctness of the figures is however disputed from the part of the review petitioner. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that, the writ petitioner is ready and willing to pay the entire amount subsisting to be cleared by virtue of Ext.P4; provided the review petitioner hands over all the requisite documents including the 'NOC' to be given by the financier and also the duly executed 'joint application' for causing the permit to be transferred to the name of Writ Petitioner. The parties are at liberty to pursue the matter in the above terms; for which no interference by this Court is necessary. If any R.P. No. 792 of 2009 in WP (C) No. 19411 of 2009 : 4 : dispute still subsists, the remedy of the Review Petitioner and of the Writ Petitioner lies only before the competent civil court and no fact adjudication is possible at the hands of this Court. 8. In the above circumstances, there is no merit to entertain the review petition. Interference is declined and it is dismissed accordingly; however, without prejudice to the right of the review petitioner to pursue the appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum, if the dispute is not resolved otherwise. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd