V M MOHANAN NAMBOOTHIRI Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE third respondent in W.P.(C) No.26587/2010 is the petitioner in this review petition. He seeks review of the judgment dated 20.8.2010 of this Court, finally disposing of the writ petition. THE writ petition was disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the complaint of the petitioner set out in Ext.P3 annexed to the writ petition in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, initiating action against the third respondent, if the allegations are found to be true. THE complaint against the review petitioner is that he had offered a vehicle that was covered by another regular permit, without disclosing the said fact and consequently, the first respondent was mislead into granting a permit in respect of the said vehicle. THE allegation of the review petitioner is that the judgment suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record necessitating a review thereof. It is also the case of the petitioner that the writ petition had been finally disposed of without issuing notice to the petitioner or hearing him before such final orders were passed. For the above reasons, he seeks a review of the judgment.

(2.) IT is worth noticing that the review petitioner has no case that the vehicle offered by him was not covered by a valid permit at the time when the application for regular permit was considered by the first respondent. His only case is that his intention was to replace the said vehicle with another vehicle and to produce the said vehicle as and when the same was required to be produced. IT is clear from the above averment that the complaint of the writ petitioner that the vehicle offered by the review petitioner was covered by another valid permit is true. The assurance of the learned Government Pleader was only that appropriate action would be taken against the review petitioner, as enjoined by law in the event of it being found that the allegations against him were true.