The contempt petition and the review petition are heard together. The contempt case arises from a judgment in W.P.(C) No.27535 of 2014 and so does the review petition. 2. The brief facts necessary, for the disposal of the review petition and the contempt petition are that, there was in existence, a regular permit for a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-08-T-3638 on the route Thriprayar-Azheekode (via) Nattika School, Chamakkala, Asmabi College, Eriyad and Kothaparamba. The said permit was in the name of one Sri.Radhakrishnan, who is said to have expired on 14.09.2008. The service is said to have been carried on by his wife, without any transfer being sought for. Subsequently, though a transfer application was filed, the legal heir of the permit holder did not press the same. The regular permit also expired on 17.12.2012.
3. The respondent in the review petition approached the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur with a temporary permit application, proffering vehicle bearing registration No.KL-47-2718. Earlier the respondent had approached this Court, seeking consideration of the temporary permit application. That was allowed by this Court. Subsequently, the respondent submitted an application for regular permit in the very same route, since the earlier regular permit had been defaulted and the validity was also over. Again, pending consideration of the regular permit application, the respondent was before this Court seeking temporary permit in the very same route. That was granted and the same was issued by the Secretary, RTA in compliance with the judgment of this Court. A subsequent refusal to grant temporary permit was challenged before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam in which also the prayer was granted.
4. While the respondent was continuing in the route on the basis of the temporary permit, the regular permit application, of the respondent, was rejected by the RTA vide its decision dated 03.12.2013 for the reason that there is an overlap of a notified scheme. The respondent was before this Court with W.P.(C).
No.3153 of 2014 challenging such rejection, in which this Court, having found the overlap to be genuine, directed the respondent to submit a fresh application in a modified route. The respondent submitted an application for a fresh permit in a modified route and the same was considered on 07.08.2014 and the regular permit itself was granted with effect from 18.10.2014. The timing conference with respect to the aforesaid permit was conducted on 20.10.2014 and a set of timings was settled. Hence, the respondent could have started operation in the said modified route on the strength of the valid permit granted and issued with a settled timings.
5. This Court called for the records of the RTA, Thrissur and on going through the same, it is found that the modified route was Thriprayer - Azhikode (Via) Koolimuttam, Asmabi College, Kara, Edavilangu, Naalumkoodiyavazhi, JTS Road, Modern Hospital, Chandappura, Kodungallur, Sreekaleeswari Theatre, Padaakulam, Gowrisankar Hospital, Toll, Kottappuram, Anchappalam, Methala, as 'Ordinary Service'. Subsequent to the grant and the settlement of timings, the respondent was here with W.P.(C).No.27535 of 2014, seeking issuance of temporary permit in the route Thriprayar-Azheekode (Via) Nattika School, Chamakkala, Asmabi College, Eriyad, Kothaparambu, which writ petition specifically averred that it was in the place of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-08-T-3638. Hence, the prayer of the respondent/writ petitioner before this Court was for issuance of a temporary permit in the vacancy of a regular permit which had expired and in lieu of which the respondent herself had applied for a regular permit and was rejected for reason of there being overlap of notified scheme. The respondent did not bring it to the notice of this Court that the regular permit application was rejected on 03.12.2013. That too for reason of there being objectionable overlap of a notified route. A grant was made in the modified route on 18.10.2014 and settlement of timings on 20.10.2014, on which date the writ petition was signed, which was filed and moved on 21.10.2014. The respondent also did not specifically state that her regular permit application in the route in which she had sought for a temporary permit, was declined for reason of overlap of a notified scheme route. The respondent obtained an order for issuance of temporary permit in the route in which regular permit application was specifically rejected for overlap.
6. The respondent also was before this Court with a contempt case, alleging that the temporary permit application was not considered.
7. This Court finds that there is clear abuse of process of Court. The respondent had suppressed material facts before this Court when preferring the aforesaid writ petition. The respondent had, by virtue of the orders obtained from this Court suppressing material facts, sought to operate a service by virtue of a 4 [four] months temporary permit in a route wherein there was obviously overlap of notified route. This Court finds that the respondent's conduct is deliberate and was intended at misleading this Court and obtaining orders without disclosing the full material facts; with respect to the permit application, when the respondent's own application for regular permit in that route was rejected. It is also to be noticed that after so suppressing material facts, the respondent was before this Court with a contempt case, again contending that the authority had refused to issue temporary permit in the vacancy of the vehicle KL-08-T-3638. That vacancy was non-existent for reason of the permit having expired. A regular permit application filed by the respondent in that vacancy also stood rejected in December, 2013.
8. In the above circumstances, the review petition is allowed. The judgment in W.P.(C).No.27535 of 2014 is recalled and the writ petition would stand dismissed. The contempt case also would stand dismissed. In the circumstances noted above, the respondent would be imposed with an exemplary cost of Rs.5,000/- [Rupees five thousand only], to be remitted to the Director, Kerala Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Ernakulam, Kochi - 682 031, within a period of two weeks from today. The petitioner shall, however, be entitled to seek operation in the modified route.
9. Registry shall transmit a copy of this judgment to the Director, Kerala Mediation and Conciliation Centre, who would be entitled to take revenue recovery proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 for recovery of the cost, in the event of failure of the respondent to remit the same as ordered above.
vku/-
Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge -/ true copy /-