The Regional Transport Officer vs Nil on 16 March, 2020

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

The Regional Transport Officer vs Nil on 16 March, 2020

Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

     MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1941

              RP.NO.241 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 35859/2019

   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 35859/2019(F) OF HIGH COURT OF
                              KERALA


REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C) :

             THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
             ERNAKULAM (TAXATION OFFICER),
             ERNAKULAM COLLECTORATE COMPLEX,
             KAKKANAD-682311.

             BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P.SANTHOSHKUMAR

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C)

             SAJEER K.M., AGED 33 YEARS,
             KALAPURACKAL, SELODE,
             CHERANALLUR.P.O, ERNAKULAM-682034


     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION            ON
16.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP.NO.241 OF 2020
     IN                             2
 WP(C). 35859/2019

                                   ORDER

The Regional Transport Officer, who is the respondent in W.P.(C) No.35859/2019 has filed this petition seeking to review the judgment dated 27.12.2019.

2. Heard.

3. Essentially the submission is that the Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court relying on the judgment of this Court in Mansoor v. State of Kerala1, which was confirmed by the Division Bench though on different grounds. It is pointed out that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that the vehicle in question was originally registered at Mangalore in the State of Karnataka and it was re-assigned and later transferred to the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam with effect from 15.6.2019. It is submitted that in view of the above, the principles laid down in the said case have no application.

4. Having considered the submissions advanced, I am of the considered view that there is merit in the contentions advanced. The fact that the vehicle was registered in the year 2008 and was re- registered in the State of Kerala in the year 2019 was not brought to the notice of this Court when the matter was disposed of on the date of 1 [2018 (1) KLT 50] RP.NO.241 OF 2020 IN 3 WP(C). 35859/2019 admission itself. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow this review petition.

The judgment dated 27.12.2019 in W.P.(C) No.35859 of 2019 is reviewed.

Post the matter before the appropriate court for fresh hearing on merits.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE NS RP.NO.241 OF 2020 IN 4 WP(C). 35859/2019 APPENDIX OF RP 241/2020 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLE KL 38 H 1424, WHICH WAS REGISTERED IN KARNATAKA ON 23.10.2008 ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLE RE-ASSIGNED AT THODUPUZHA. SUB RTO ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF TAX LICENCE SHOWING THE TAX ENDORSEMENT ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN RP NO.976/2019 IN WP(C)NO.13758/2019 RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL RP.NO.241 OF 2020 IN 5 WP(C). 35859/2019

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court