IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 1058 of 2008(W) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.24767/2008 DATED 18/08/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER. ---------------------------------------- I.N.PRADEEP, ETHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KANIPPAYOOR, KUNNAMKULAM,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,THRISSUR. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., THRISSUR. 4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. FOR R3 MR.MOHAMMED HASHIM, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- R.P.No.1058 of 2008 in W.P.(C.) No.24767 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of June, 2009 O R D E R The review of the judgment in WP(C) No.24767/2008 is sought for. The writ petition was dismissed, confirming the findings of the RTA and STAT that the application made by the petitioner for the modified route was received in the Office of the RTA, beyond one month from 26/12/2007, and rejecting the case of the petitioner that the application was delivered on 18/01/2008. 2. In this review petition, the petitioner has averred that the modified proposal was submitted in the Office on 18/01/2008, and that in the inward register, the same has been entered at Sl.No.73300. In view of the positive averment that was made in the review petition, by order dated 09/02/2009, respondents were directed to ascertain the details of the entry in the inward register at Sl.No.73300. In compliance with the said order, a statement has been filed producing the relevant extracts of the inward register as R.P.No.1058/2008 -2- Ext.R2(a) & (b) pertaining to 18/01/2008 and 29/01/2008. These two documents show that there is no such inward entry as averred in the review petition. Further it is also seen from the inward register that on 18/01/2009 the modified proposal was not received from the petitioner. In view of these facts, I do not find any material to conclude that the judgment is vitiated by any error apparently in the case of the petitioner. The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg