IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 8389 of 2009(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.R.MANOHARAN, S/O.LATE RAGHAVAN KARAYATHARA HOUSE, POONITHURA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ERNAKULAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, R.T.A. ERNAKULAM. 3. SIBI JOHN, PULINGAPPALLIL HOUSE ETTUMANOOR PO, KOTTAYAM. 4. TOMY CHANDY, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE THIRUVAMPADY, NEEZHOOR, KOTTAYAM. 5. M.V.THOMAS, MEENKOLIL HOUSE THAMARACHAL, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM. 6. JOHN THOMAS, MYALIL HOUSE, KALLARA SOUTH PO, VAIKOM. 7. G.PRAKASH, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR M.G.UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. 8. J.JOSEPH, PRESIDENT, ATHIRAMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ATHIRAMAPUZHA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.8389 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the Ist day of April, 2009. JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P8 and P9. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the petitioner sought revision of his timings by filing an application resulting in Ext.P1. He was not satisfied by the timings as revised. Therefore he filed yet another application for revision of timings that resulted in Ext.P3 order. Against Ext.P3 order, petitioner filed a revision before the Tribunal, as MVARP.No.137/08 resulting in Ext.P5. Against that order certain rival operators filed writ petition before this court and by judgment dated 5.11.2008, this court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. 3. The Tribunal accordingly reconsidered the matter and rejected the revision. Thereafter against the initial order, namely Ext.P1, petitioner filed a revision as MVARP.No.441/08 along with MP.No.2929/08 praying for condonation of delay of 363 days. The delay condonation application was rejected by Ext.P8 and the WP(c).No.8389/09 /2/ revision itself is rejected by Ext.P9. It is challenging Exts.P8 and P9 that this writ petition is filed. 4. A reading of Ext.P8 shows that the Tribunal was not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner that because he was wrongly prosecuting the matter with the delay has occurred. Having gone through Ext.P8 I have no reason to take a view different from what has been taken by the Tribunal, I have no reason to interfere with Exts.P8 and P9. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.8389/09 /2/