IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25368 of 2009(M)
1. N.ABDUL RASHEED, S/O.ALAVI,
... Petitioner
2. SRI.SUNIL KUMAR, SREYAS, VELIMUKKU
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER/THE
... Respondent
2. V.S.RAJASEKHARAN, S/O.SHANMUGAM,
3. N.M.PERUMAL, T.C.31/44,KOLUTHURAPPALLY
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :08/09/2009
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P(C).No.25368 of 2009
==================
Dated this the 8th day of September, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners challenge Ext.P12 order of the Secretary, RTA,
Vatakara, wherein the timings of the 2nd respondent’s stage carriage
had been revised as directed in Ext.P11 judgment. When it was put to
the counsel for the petitioners that a revision would lie against Ext.P12
order before the Tribunal under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
the counsel for the petitioners would contend that in so far as Ext.P12
order has been passed in accordance with Ext.P11 judgment, a
revision would be a futile exercise. He would contend that Ext.P11
order has been obtained by fraud and Ext.P12 is liable to be set aside
on that ground. In so far as Ext.P11 judgment stands, I do not think
that Ext.P12 order, which has been passed as directed in Ext.P11
judgment, can be faulted. If the petitioners have got a case that
Ext.P11 judgment is wrong, the remedy of the petitioners lies in filing
a petition to review that judgment after obtaining leave to file review
petition or to file an appeal against Ext.P11 after obtaining leave to file
appeal. Therefore, without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
2