The Secretary vs The Secretary
2021 Latest Caselaw 4706 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

     TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 20TH MAGHA,1942

              RP.No.64 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 20338/2020

 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.09.2020 IN WP(C) 20338/2020(N) OF
                      HIGH COURT OF KERALA


REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN WP(C):

             THE SECRETARY,
             REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, COLLECTORATE P.O,
             KOTTAYAM 686 002.

             BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MABLE C.KURIAN

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WP(C):

             K.P.MAHESH,
             MAHESH MANDIRAM, KARIYATHURUTH P.O, KOTTAYAM
             REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
             T.C THOMAS, THAKADIYELPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHANNANIKKAD
             P.O, KOTTAYAM 686 531.


     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.02.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP.No.64 OF 2021

IN WP(C). 20338/2020               2




                                  ORDER

The instant review petition is filed seeking to review the judgment

dated 29.9.2020 in W.P.(C) No.20338/2020.

2. The above writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the

respondents to implement Ext.P1 order as per which, the RTA, Kottayam,

had granted renewal of regular permit in respect of stage carriage No. KL

-35-3802 on the route Kottayam-Cherthala as ordinary service subject to

clearance of all Government dues including vehicle tax. By the judgment

under review, this Court had disposed of the writ petition directing the

respondent to expedite the implementation of Ext.P1 in consonance with

law and procedure.

3. I have heard Smt. Mable C.Kurian, the learned Government

Pleader. Though notice of the review petitioner was served on the counsel

who had appeared for the respondent in the writ petition, when the matter

was taken up, Sri. O.D.Sivadas representing Sri.G.Prabhakaran submitted

that though the respondent was noticed, he has not responded.

4. Having considered the submissions, I am satisfied that vital

materials were not brought to the notice of this Court. There are errors RP.No.64 OF 2021

apparent on the face of the records warranting exercise of review powers.

The review petition will stand allowed and the judgment dated 29.9.2020

in W.P(C)No.20338 of 2020 will stand recalled.

Post W.P(C) No.20338 of 2020 for final hearing after a week.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE DSV RP.No.64 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 28.10.2020

RESPONDENT'S/S ANNEXURES:

NIL

//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE