Kerala High Court
M. Ratheesh vs The Regional Transport Authority on 11 November, 2014
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936
RP.No. 987 of 2014
---------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 29744/2014 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT,
DATED 11/11/2014
----------
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER IN WPC:
------------------------------------------------------------------
M. RATHEESH
S/O.CHINDANKUTTY, MOYIYODAN HOUSE, MOTTAMMAL P.O.
KANNAPPURAM, KANNUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
SRI.R.HARISHANKAR
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:
------------------------------------------------------------
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KANNUR-670 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE SECRETARY,
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KANNUR-670 002.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-12-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
RP.No. 987 of 2014
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES
---------------------------------------
ANNEXURE 1. COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE REGULAR PERMIT WAS
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 13/9/13
ANNEXURE 2. COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE R1 AT ITS MEETING HELD ON 22/1/14
IN ITEM NO.32
ANNEXURE 3. COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE MOTOR VEHICLE
INSPECTOR DATED 9/4/14.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES
------------------------------------------
NIL.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.P No.987 of 2014
in
W.P(C) No.29744 of 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 17th day of December, 2014
O R D E R
The review petitioner seeks a review of the judgment on the ground that the petitioner in fact had applied for the regular permit on 13.09.2013 and that the same was adjourned on 22.01.2014 despite it having been placed before the RTA. In such circumstance, the review petitioner submits that the regular permit application itself has been pending from 2013 onwards. However, it is to be noticed that this Court in the order did not deal with the date of filing of application, but only noticed the grant being in August, 2014. This Court also directed that the timings would be settled within three months and if no timings are settled within that period, the temporary permit application would be considered and issued on the basis of the proposed timings.
RP No.987/2014 : 2 :
2. In such circumstance, there is no ground for the review of the aforesaid judgment, because there is no averments as to why the documents produced herein were not produced at that point of time. Evidently, it cannot be said that the documents could not be produced despite exercise of due diligence or that they were not available with the petitioner.
Review petition dismissed.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)
jma //true copy//
P.A to Judge