IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22784 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ALEXANDER P. CHANDY, PERNGATTU THEKKUMCHERIL, KOZHUVALLOOR, CHENGANNOOR. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 22784 OF 2008 K ==================== Dated this the 29th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Variation was sought for by the petitioner and that was rejected by the RTA. Against that order, appeal was filed and that was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment of the STAT granting variation subject to settlement of timing. Following Ext.P1, in a timing conference conducted on 6/11/2008, timing was also settled. Against Ext.P2, petitioner filed MVARP 23/08 before the Tribunal and that was rejected by Ext.P4. It is challenging Exts. P2 and P4, this writ petition has been filed. 2. A reading of Ext.P4 order of the Tribunal shows that the timing was settled in a timing conference and that 17 other operators were also heard and that these persons were made parties. Further, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was entitled to have individual notice regarding the timing conference has also been dealt with by the STAT and it is held that since the petitioner had participated in the timing conference, he cannot raise a complaint in this behalf. On this WPC 22784/08 :2 : basis, Tribunal held Ext.P4 order. I do not find any material to hold that the conclusions are perverse and warrant interference. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp