The Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode v. Mohan Raj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/23RD MAGHA, 1936 RP.No. 130 of 2015 (C) IN WP(C).26229/2014 -------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 26229/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 10-10-2014 REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN W.P.(C): ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE-673 620.
2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM-676 505. BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R. RENJITH RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C):
-------------------------------------------------------- MOHAN RAJ S/O.APPUKUTTAN, 16/443 F, KANNACHATH HOUSE MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, MALAPPURAM-676 121.
BY SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: JJJ
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------------ R.P. No. 130 of 2015 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of February, 2015
O R D E R
The Government has filed a review against the Judgment dated 10.10.2014 in W.P.(C) No.26229/2014. 2.
This Court directed grant of temporary permit in the route Puthiyappa - Medical College, which permit, even at that time, was submitted to have been expired on 07.01.2012. The State has filed the review on the ground that, at that point of time it was not brought to the notice of this Court that, though the permit had expired in 2012, six other stage carriage operators were granted various timings, which would conflict with the timings in the said vacant slot.
3.
The Judges Papers of the Writ Petition disclose that the Writ Petition was allowed at the admission stage itself. In such circumstance, this Court is inclined to review the Judgment in the Writ Petition and the same is recalled.
R.P. No. 130/2015 -24.
The learned counsel for the petitioner in the Writ Petition, however, submits that the reasons stated herein are not disclosed in Ext.P5.
5.
Ext.P5 is a rejection on the ground that the permit already expired on 7.1.2012. What is relevant is that there is no vacancy on which a temporary permit could have been issued.
In such circumstance this Court does not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P5. The Writ Petition would stand dismissed.
Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A. To Judge jjj