Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Jolly Sebastian
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/8TH MAGHA, 1936 RP.No. 384 of 2014 (T) IN WP(C).2154/2014 ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2154/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 22-01-2014 REVIEW PETITIONER(3RD PARTY):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR REPRESENTED BY HIS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY P.SURESH KUMAR, CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. JOLLY SEBASTIAN, W/O.SEBASTIAN, OTTACKAL HOUSE, ALAKODE MUTTAM.P.O, IDUKKI 685 587.
2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI-686603.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. R. RENJITH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP.No. 384 of 2014 (T) IN WP(C).2154/2014 APPENDIX REVIEW PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE -I COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DECISION DATED 8.1.2014 OF THE RTA, IDUKKI AS ITEM NO.123.G/38724/2013/ID ANNEXURE -2 COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.G.O.(P) NO.42/2009/TRAN DATED 14.7.2009 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:
NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------- R.P.No.384 of 2014 in W.P.(C) No.2154 of 2014 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2015
JUDGMENT
The review petitioner Kerala State Road Transport Corporation has filed the above review petition on the ground that if the judgment is complied with, then there will be objectionable overlap of notified route and in fact an earlier temporary permit application was rejected by Annexure-1. The date of such rejection is not evident from the document produced and the learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition submits that the rejection order itself was issued long afterwards. However, it is to be noticed that the objectionable overlap exists in the route, in which the petitioner has sought for issuance of temporary permit.
In such circumstance, the judgment would stand recalled. The petitioner in the writ petition if issued with a temporary permit on the strength of the judgment, the same shall stand revoked. The review petition hence is allowed and the writ petition would stand dismissed.
SD/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JV JUDGE