IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 RP.No. 575 of 2001(Y) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.31050/2001 Dated 16/10/2001 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SRI.P.N.K.VELAYUDHAN, “CHAITHRAM”, MALADI, PAYYOLI, KOZHIKODE ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- R.P.575/2001 in O.P.31050/2001 -------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009 ORDER Respondents in the writ petition, which was disposed of at the stage of admission, have filed this review contending that the writ petitioner had earlier approached this Court for a direction to dispose of an application for a temporary permit vide O.P.28854/2001 and the same was disposed of as per judgment dated 28.9.2001 with the following directions. “There shall be a direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P1 application for temporary permit and pass appropriate orders, after making the necessary enquiries, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.” 2. While so, the instant writ petition, O.P.31050/2001, was filed contending that the petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 application for a R.P.575/2001 2 temporary permit and the same was not considered and disposed of. The contention of the writ petitioner was that he is the owner of the stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No.KL-11 J 8181 and also vehicle No.KL-13/C 4275. The latter vehicle was serviced with the regular permit on the route Irrity - Kozhikode. Petitioner claimed to have purchased the latter vehicle along with the permit from V.P.Ahammed, though the transfer of his vehicle was yet to be endorsed in the R.C.Book. It is contended that the second vehicle No.KL-13/C 4275 had some major mechanical defects and therefore, petitioner sought for a temporary permit in relation to the stage carriage No.KL-11 J 8181 in the place of KL-13/C 4275 for a period of four months. Ext.P4 was referred to as an application for a temporary permit. The writ petition was disposed of as stated above, directing orders to be passed on Ext.P4 application and when steps were taken to comply with the direction, it was found that the very same petitioner had filed O.P.28854/2001 praying for the same relief in respect of the same vehicle and R.P.575/2001 3 in respect of the same route. Relief was sought in respect of Ext.P1 application marked in O.P.28854/2001. It is seen that Ext.P1 in the earlier writ petition is the same as Ext.P4 in O.P.31050/2001. It is suppressing the fact that the earlier writ petition was filed and that a direction was issued by this Court for disposal of the application for temporary permit produced therein that the latter writ petition was filed by the same person. Since the writ petition was disposed of at the stage of admission, it was not possible for the respondents to bring this to the notice of the Court. It is only when steps were taken to comply with the direction in the judgment in O.P.31050/2001 that it was realised that there is an earlier direction in relation to the same application for temporary permit filed by the same operator. Hence the review. 3. Facts stated in the Review Petition remain uncontroverted. Apart from the fact that the conduct of the petitioner is to be condemned in R.P.575/2001 4 strong terms, I am not able to discern any reason why the writ petitioner should have approached this Court with the subsequent writ petition, alleging delay in the disposal of an application for temporary permit, in spite of the fact that there was already a direction by this Court to the authority to take a decision on the application for temporary permit. 4. Obviously there is an error apparent on the face of the judgment of this Court dated 16.10.2001 in O.P.31050/2001. 5. Accordingly, Review Petition is allowed. Judgment dated 16.10.2001 in O.P.31050/2001 is set aside. Review petitioner is entitled to cost of Rs.10,000/-. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs