A third party, a stage carriage operator, filed a review petition challenging a judgment that secured settlement of timings for another operator. The court found no apparent error and dismissed the review, leaving the petitioner the liberty to challenge the timing settlement separately.
Review petition dismissed with liberty to challenge the settlement of timings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2016/9TH BHADRA, 1938
RP.No. 729 of 2016 ()
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.23626/2016 DATED 15/07/2016.
REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD PARTY:
R. BIJUMON, KALEKATTU HOUSE, THURAVOOR P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:
1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.
2. RATHEESH KUMAR, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, AROOR P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688 534.
R1 BY GOCT. PLEADER SMT.C.S. SHEEJA. R2 BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
RP.No. 729 of 2016
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE TIMING PROCEEDING OF PETITIONER WITH ITS ORDER NO.G/63437/2014/A DATED 07/04/2015. ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECRETARY, RTA WITH ITS ORDER NO.C3/47782/2015/A DATED 03/06/2016. ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16/07/2016.
ANNEXURE A4 COPY OF THE TIME HEARING NOTICE DATED 08/08/2016.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
rs.
SHAJI P. CHALY, J
R.P.NO.729 OF 2016 in
W.P.(C)NO.23626 OF 2016
Dated this the 31st day of August, 2016
O R D E R
A third party, stage carriage operator is seeking a review of the judgment of this court dated 15.07.2016 contending that, the petitioner in the writ petition secured the judgment by suppressing material facts and also contending that he was seeking settlement of timings to his vehicle on the ground that, there is a default vacancy available enabling the petitioner in the writ petition to operate his vehicle. This review petition is dated 12.08.2016. However I find that even according to the review petitioner there was a timing conference scheduled on 18.08.2016. So far as the judgment under review is concerned, there was no specific direction to consider the application submitted by the writ petitioner in a particular manner. Anyhow, on 18.08.2016 the timing sought for by the writ petitioner is settled as
R.P.NO.729 OF 2016 in W.P.(C)NO.23626 OF 2016 2
per order dated 18.08.2016 made available to me in
court. I do not find any illegality or error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment rendered by this court so as to review the same. Therefore leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to challenge the settlement of timings in favour of the writ petitioner, this review petition is dismissed.
sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE
R.AV/31/08/2016
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is any apparent error, illegality, or laches in the order dated 15.07.2016 warranting a review.
R. Bijumon
The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Alappuzha
Ratheesh Kumar
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
