IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 732 of 2009(G) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.13102/2009 Dated 05/05/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER: ---------------------- ANIL KRISHNAN, AGE. 47 YEARS, S/O GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT KRISHNA VILASOM, OMALLOOR VILLAGE & P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT BY ADV. MR. V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENTS / WRIT PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. G. ANIL KUMAR, PROPRIETOR, A & K EARTH MOVERS, CHIKKAELPUTHEN VEEDU, MANGARAM MURI, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANATHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (SOUTHERN RANGE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. \ 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONNI R1 BY ADV. MR. PHILIP T . VARGHESE R2 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.K. BABU THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I.A. 331 of 2009 and R.P. 732 of 2009 in W.P. (C) No. 13102 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 27th day of July, 2009 ORDER The petitioner in the Writ Petition approached this Court, stating that the transportation of river sand from Tamil Nadu was being intercepted by the respondents, despite the fact that the goods were being transported with valid documents. It was also pointed out that, the Writ Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) 26269 of 2009, with somewhat different set of prayers, where interference was declined as per Ext.P4, stating that, the relief prayed for was not specific, which in turn was confirmed by the Division Bench, vide Ext.P5. In similar circumstances, the verdict passed by another Division Bench as borne by Ext.P6 was set aside by the Apex Court, as per Ext.P7, positively holding that, the appellant's vehicles should not be detained at the check post in Kerala, except in accordance with law. Based on the above verdict and also in view of the subsequent specific cause of action as pointed out by the Writ Petitioner, he approached this Court filing W.P.(c) 13102 of 2009. After considering the prayer that the vehicle belonged to the petitioner in which river sand was being transported shall not be intercepted, if it is supported with valid documents, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition placing R.P. 732 of 2009 in WP (C) No. 13102 of 2009 : 2 : reliance on the verdict passed by the Apex Court, as extracted therein holding that, petitioner's vehicles shall not be detained at the border check post in Kerala except in accordance with law. Subsequent to the disposal of the above case, it appears that the review petitioner has approached this Court by filing I.A. 629 of 2009, seeking 'leave to appeal' before the Division Bench, stating that the review petitioner was a public spirited person; that the Writ Petitioner had concealed material facts; that the Writ Petitioner was not in a position to bring river sand from Tamil Nadu, in view of the ban imposed and on several other grounds, legal and factual. The Division Bench of this Court, declined interference, stating that, if the petitioner was aggrieved in any manner, it was for him to seek review of the judgment and it is accordingly that the present review petition has been filed, along with I.A. 331 of 2009, seeking for leave in this regard. 2. In view of the order in IA No. 629 of 2009 in unnumbered Writ Appeal, I.A. 331 of 2009 for leave to file Review Petition is allowed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner, the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner, as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State/department/respondents. 4. As made clear hereinbefore, the judgment passed by this Court on 5.5.2009 was only to the effect that the Writ Petitioner's vehicle shall not be detained, except in accordance with law. The R.P. 732 of 2009 in WP (C) No. 13102 of 2009 : 3 : relative merits and demerits or as to the sustainability of the contention raised by the Writ Petitioner was not subjected to any analysis nor a finding was rendered thereon. That apart, the very wording used in the judgment was exactly the direction as given by the Apex Court, vide Ext.P7. It is the law of the land by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and bound to be followed by this Court as a matter of judicial discipline. There is absolutely no material to show that, the judgment suffered from any “error apparent on the face of records”, particularly since no merits, but for the right of the Writ Petitioner to carry on trade/business in accordance with law have been discussed any where. If the review petitioner, who is stated as a public spirited citizen, is aggrieved of any alleged default or lapses on the part of the departmental authorities in ensuring that the Writ Petitioner is transporting materials in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, the remedy of the review petitioner lies elsewhere. In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhari's case reported in AIR 1995 SC 455, there is nothing to call for a review of the verdict passed by this Court, interference is declined and the Review Petition is dismissed accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd