Dismissed

Ratheesh v. Faisal

Kerala HC23 Nov 2016RP/998/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Kerala High Court dismissed a review petition filed by the second respondent in a pending writ matter. The bench held that the petitioner failed to establish any error apparent on the face of the record. The judge directed the first respondent to note pending Tribunal proceedings and decide the main representation accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed with direction to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority to consider the pending representation in light of Tribunal proceedings.

Ratheesh Vs Faisal — Kerala HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

RP.No. 998 of 2016 ()

¶6

---------------------WP(C) 29491/2016 of THIS HONOURABLE COURT

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶8

RATHEESH, KOCHUVILAVEEDU,MELAVATTOOR.P.O., VARKALA, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HLDER PRINCE,S/O. SUGATHAN, AGED 32 YEARS, PRIYA BHAVAN, SREENIVASAPURAM, VARKALA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/WRIT PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT:

¶11

1. FAISAL, 'OASIS', KOLLAMTHAZHAM.P.O., KOLLAM-691004.

¶12

2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM-691001.

¶13

R1 BY SRI.STALIN PETER DAVIS R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN

¶14

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

RP.No. 998 of 2016 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

¶19

ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 6/9/2016 IN WPC NO. 29491 OF 2016. ANNEXURE B: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM DT 31/1/2011 ANNEXURE C: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION PETITION IN MVARP 428/2011.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶25

R.P.No.998 of 2016 in W.P(C) No.29491 of 2016

¶26

Dated this the 23^rd day of November, 2016

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

-------------

¶29

This review petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to review the judgment dated 06.09.2016 whereby, 1^st respondent was directed to consider Ext.P1 representation submitted by the petitioner in the writ petition, namely the stage carriage operator in respect of vehicle bearing No.KL 17 F 2633, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the 2^nd respondent and any other interested or affected persons at the earliest and at any rate, within two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶30

Now this review petition is filed by the 2^nd respondent in the writ petition stating that, already a proceedings is pending before the Tribunal and therefore the representation submitted by the petitioner, before the 1st respondent is not maintainable under law.

¶31

R.P.No.998 of 2016 in 2 W.P(C) No.29491 of 2016

¶32

My considered opinion is that, I have not

¶33

expressed any opinion on merits while disposing of the writ petition. If petitioner has a case that same subject matter is pending before the Tribunal, it is to be taken note of by the 1^st respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Petitioner has not made out any ground for review of the judgment, since there being no error apparent on the face of the record.

¶34

Review petition fails accordingly it is dismissed.

¶35

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶36

rmm/26/11/2016

¶37

//True Copy //

¶38

P.A. To Judge

Ratheesh v. Faisal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratheesh v. Faisal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Chandramohan Vs District Collector

Thankamma Vs the Sub Collector & Presiding Officer

M/S. Ashirwad Trading Company Vs Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation

Raveendran M Vs Union of India

Mosque Lane Resident'S Association Vs Biju Prabhakar, District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

Basheer Vs the Additional District Magistrate