IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 38213 of 2007(Y) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- SRI.VALSAN.K., KUMBAKKARA HOUSE, MANGALASSERY,P.O.ARIYIL, THALIPARAMBA, BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR. 2. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T NO REPRESENTATION. DISMISSED 28/02/2008 SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.38213 OF 2007 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2007 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P2 and P4. Ext.P2 is an order passed by the 1st respondent rejecting an application made by the petitioner for revision of timings. The reasons stated in Ext.P2 is that no change of circumstance has been made out by the petitioner for revising the timings. Petitioner has a complaint that Ext.P2 has been issued without notice to him or hearing his arguments. Aggrieved by Ext.P2, petitioner filed a revision before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by Ext.P4, affirmed Ext.P2 and confirmed that there was no change of circumstances justifying revision of timings. 2. On the material that is available, I feel no reason to take a view different from what has been taken by the authorities. Petitioner contends that if he was given a notice and his arguments were heard, he would have been able to satisfy the primary authority regarding the change in circumstances justifying his request. However, I do not think that any prejudice W.P.(C) No.38213/2007 2 has been caused to the petitioner. In view of the above, I need only clarify that in the circumstances, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the primary authority afresh, if there is change of circumstance justifying revision of timings. It is directed that if such an application is made, the authority will consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, with notice to the parties concerned. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) ps