Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE17H DAY OF FEBRUARY201428TH MAGHA, 1935 RP.No. 155 of 2014 ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
IN WP(C)NO. 30021/2013 DATED1612/2013 ...... PETITIONER(S):NO PARTY: ---------------------------------------- JIBY A.P., S/O.PAULOSE, AREECKAL HOUSE, KIDANGOOR PO, VENGOOR, ANGAMALY. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. M.V.GEORGE, MANJALI HOUSE, THIRUMUDIKUNNU, KORATTY PO - 680 306.
2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM - 682 030. R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R.REMA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1702-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss RP.NO.155/2014 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE .A: COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER VALID TILL1409/2015. ANNEXURE B: COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE ISSUED TO THE WRIT PETITIONER ON2502/2011. ANNEXURE .C: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
DTD. 14/02/2013 IN WPC.NO.22440 OF2012 ANNEXURE .D: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE2D RESPONDENT DTD. 06/06/2013. ANNEXURE .E: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
DTD. 16/12/2013 IN WPC.NO.30021 OF2013 ANNEXURE .F: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 01/01/2014. ANNEXURE .G: COPY OF THE TIME HEARING NOTICE DTD. 29/01/2014. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
===================== R.P. No. 155 of 2014 ====================== Dated this the 17th day of February, 2014 ORDER
The review petitioner herein has sought for review of the judgment on the ground that there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record, insofar as this Court has recorded that, the petitioner in the Writ Petition had sought for revision of his timings only on the ground that the same were settled last in 2009. The judgment also noticed, the contention of the petitioner that several services were introduced through the route after 2009, which timings clashed with the service of the petitioner and it was to avoid such clash of timings that an application was filed as Ext. P1 dated 06.11.2013; to revise the timings. On a reading of the judgment, it would be clear that, the Court was persuaded by the fact that after 2009, there were no revision of timings and hence the Court was persuaded to direct consideration of the petitioner's application for revision of timings.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent however, would contend that, in fact, the Writ Petition R.P. No. 155 of 2014 2 specifically avers that there was a revision filed by the petitioner and the timing was revised on 06.06.2013; which revision is produced by the review petitioner as Annexure-D. It is also contended that, though Annexure-D speaks about a timing conference, on 17.01.2013, no such timing conference was scheduled. In the circumstances noticed above and on the specific averments made in the Review Petition, it is clear that, this Court has committed a mistake insofar as finding that there was no revision of timings attempted or granted between 2009 & 2013. Hence, Annexure-E judgment dated 16.12.2013 is reviewed to that extent. The petitioner's prayer is to seek for a revision of timings by Ext. P1 despite the timings having been revised on 06.06.2013. It would be for the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority to consider the same. Review Petition disposed of. No costs. Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB