IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 W.A.No.1450 of 2008 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.1235/2008 DATED 04/04/2008 .................... APPELLANT: (PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION):- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- A.C.JOSE, ANNIYIL HOUSE, KATTANAM P.O., PALLICKAL MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: 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. R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J. --------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1450 of 2008-E --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu,C.J. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.1235 of 2008 dated 4th April, 2008, the petitioner in the writ petition has presented this Writ Appeal. 2. Petitioner is the permit holder of a stage carriage vehicle, bearing registration No.KL-4/U 4861. In the application filed before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Alappuzha, the petitioner had requested the said authority to revise the timings of his vehicle, inter alia, contending that the departure of another stage carriage vehicle, bearing registration No.KL-4/Q 6124, from Kayamkulam is at 10.55 a.m. and 10.54 a.m. respectively and, therefore, there is only a time gap of one minute between these vehicles and, in fact, according to the petitioner, causes clashes between these two vehicles. 3. The Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority has rejected the request made by the petitioner in his request letter dated 5.6.2007, primarily based on Rule 212 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, which provides that the settled timings can be changed, only, if there exist any altered or changed situations or circumstances. According to the W.A.No.1450 of 2008-E - 2 - Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, such situation or circumstance does not exist in the instant case. 4. It is the correctness or otherwise of the said order was called in question by the petitioner before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam in M.V.A.R.P.No.395 of 2007. The Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the contesting respondents, has affirmed the view expressed by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority. 5. The applicant/petitioner, being aggrieved by these two orders, was before this Court in W.P.(C).No.1235 of 2008. 6. The primary contention that was canvassed before the learned Single Judge was that the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, without hearing the petitioner could not have considered the application filed by the petitioner dated 5.6.2007. 7. The learned Single Judge, in his order, observes that though this ground was raised in the memorandum of revision petition filed, it appears, the said ground was not argued before the Tribunal and, therefore, for the first time the said ground cannot be canvassed in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. In our view, the thinking of the learned Single Judge appears to be correct. It may so happen that a party, who is before a W.A.No.1450 of 2008-E - 3 - Tribunal may raise several grounds in the revision petition, but those grounds are not argued at the time of hearing of the matter concerned. The mere fact that the said ground has been raised in the memorandum of revision petition, but not argued before the Tribunal, is not a reason for this Court to consider that ground and grant relief to the applicant/petitioner. In that view of the matter, while affirming the view expressed by the learned Single Judge, the Writ Appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer Judge vku/dk.