RAHATH Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was not a party to W.P. s(C) No. 12891 of 2014 has filed this review petition seeking review of the judgment dated 28.5.2014 by which the writ petition has been finally disposed of. According to the review petitioner, the writ petitioner had not placed the entire facts before this Court. Therefore, the judgment sought to be reviewed has been passed without being considering all the material facts.

(2.) According to Sri. K.V. Gopinathan Nair, who appears for the review petitioner, it is true that the second respondent had been conducting services on the route, Eloor Depot-Chilavannoor with a stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No. KBE. 1591. However, the said vehicle was sold by him on 7.6.2001, as evident from Annexure-A1 copy of the registration particulars of the vehicle. Reliance is placed on Annexure-A2 proceedings to point out that the vehicle had become permitless as on 8.6.2001 and therefore, without any objection, the ownership of the vehicle was transferred to the name of the purchaser. The service has been remaining disrupted, ever since. According to the counsel, in view of the notification issued by the State Government on 14.7.2009 it is not possible for a city service to be conducted from Eloor-Chilavannoor for the reason that, there would be overlapping on the notified route, exceeding 5%. It is further pointed out that, in view of the above, applications for regular permit submitted by other operators to conduct services in the vacancy of the second respondent had been rejected. Annexure-A3 is a copy of one such order of rejection, though the reason for rejection stated therein is violation of rule 2C(a) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. It is the contention of the counsel for the review petitioner that, the direction in the judgment, sought to be reviewed, would not have been issued, had the above facts been placed before this Court, before disposing of the writ petition.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent refuting the contentions of the review petitioner. The second respondent disputes the locus standi of the petitioner. According to the counsel for the second respondent, no permit has been produced by the review petitioner to substantiate his claim that he is a stage carriage operator. Therefore, this Court is left in the dark, as to the route over which the review petitioner is conducting his services and the timings subject to which, he is conducting the services. According to the counsel for the second respondent, if there is violation of the notified scheme as complained by the petitioner, it is for the K.S.R.T.C. to complain and not the review petitioner. It is also contended that, there has been no suppression of any material fact in the writ petition for the reason that, it has been disclosed in the writ petition that, the permit of the petitioner had expired and that he had not been operating his service. Since no other operator has been granted with permit to conduct services on the route, he had applied the grant of a temporary permit of 4 months' duration under section 87(1)(c) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is further pointed out by the counsel that what has been ordered this Court is only to consider the application, with no positive direction.