E.V Rajeevan v. Transport Commissioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/18TH JYAISHTA, 1937 RP.No. 182 of 2015 (Y) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO.29591/2010(Y), DATED 04-08-2014 ------------------ REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER :
---------------------------------------------------------- E.V.RAJEEVAN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.E.V.RAMAR, RESIDING AT 'EKKILE VALAPPIL(H)', NEAR PAATTAYAM PALLI, POST KOLACHERY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 001.
BY ADVS.SRI.A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ SRI.T.K.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :
----------------------------------------------------
1. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, NORTH ZONE, KOZHIKODE-673 001.
3. THE SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THALIPARAMBA-670 141.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
RP.No. 182 of 2015 (Y) --------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE A1:
CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO.29591 OF 2010(Y) DATED 04.08.2014.
ANNEXURE A2:
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER NO.B1/15053/TC/2010 DATED 14.11.2014. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:
NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE.
Msd.
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J --------------------------------------------- R.P.No.182 of 2015 in WPC No.29591 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the Ist day of June, 2015
ORDER
Heard both sides.
The petitioner, in the writ petition, has challenged Ext.P3 by which the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of `38025/-. The petitioner alleges that he had already paid tax for 15 years and the vehicle was registered in his name only on 28.12.2009 and therefore, Ext.P3 is illegal. This Court by impugned judgment dismissed the claim. Subsequently by Annexure-A2, the relief sought for in the writ petition has been granted by the Transport Commissioner.
In the light of the subsequent development, if the impugned judgment is allowed to stand, it will cause prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, this review petition is allowed and the judgment dismissing the writ petition is recalled so far as it is covered by Annexure-A2.
sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE css/ true copy P.S.TO JUDGE