Shajan.V.B vs The Regional Transport Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 15042 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
        FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1943
                           RP NO. 361 OF 2021

 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.03.2015 IN WP(C) NO.26101/2014 OF
               THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

            SHAJAN.V.B., AGED 47 YEARS
            S/O.BHASKARAN, VADERIYATTIL HOUSE, ANJOOR, MUNDOOR,
            MUNDOOR P.O.THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 541.
            BY ADVS.
            P.RAMACHANDRAN
            P.DEEPAK


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
            AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 003.

    2       THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
            PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION,
            THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 545.

    3       FRANCIS, S/O.OUSEPH,
            KUTTIKKATTIL HOUSE, MUNDOOR P.O.,
            THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 541.

    4       SHINOD, S/O.BALAN,
            PONNASSERRY HOUSE, MUNDOOR P.O.,
            THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 541.

            BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JUSTIN MATHEW


     THIS   REVIEW   PETITION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
16.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                         K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
                 -------------------------------------
                          R.P.No.361 of 2021
                                  In
                     W.P.(C) No.26101 of 2014 [K]
                 -------------------------------------
                Dated this the 16th day of July, 2021

                              O R D E R

The judgment was passed on 04.03.2015 and the

review has been filed in 2021, on the ground of an order

passed by the Motor Vehicles Department and a judgment of

a Division Bench of this Court, both in the year 2018. I

am unable to comprehend how a review is maintainable on

the basis of the orders passed after four years. I also

fail to understand why a review was necessitated. I find

absolutely no reason to entertain the review petition,

nor is there any reason to condone the delay of 1971

days.

The application for condonation of delay and the

review petition are hence rejected.

Sd/-

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE sp/19/07/2021 APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE:

ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.03.2015 IN WP(C) NO.26101/2014 ON THE FILES OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

ANNEXURE 11 COPY OF THE FARES FOR THE MOTOR CAB ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

AANNEXURE 111 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.10.2018 IN WPC NO.33626/2018