IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34377 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.C.NAINANKUTTY, PALAMADATHIL CHOLAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.KADALUNDI NAGARAM, TIRUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR SMT.G.CHITRA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. 2. K.V.MAMMIKUTTY, KULANGARA VEETTIL, MANGALAM POST, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. P.K.ABDULLA KOYA, SAMEER MANZIL, PANAMTHODY, P.O.PERUMUGHAM, FEROKE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 34377 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 2nd December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders of the Secretary, R.T.A in respect of revision of timings of service of the petitioner. The petitioner alleges irregularities in the same. Originally, Ext. P4 order was passed by the Secretary, against which the petitioner has already filed a revision before the Tribunal. Now, again, another order, Ext. P6 has been passed. The petitioner now challenges Exts.P4 and P6 on various grounds including fraud. 2. I am of opinion that insofar as the challenge against Exts. P4 and P6 are on the same ground and the petitioner has already filed a revision against Ext. P4 order, it is only appropriate that the petitioner challenges Ext. P6 order also in a revision. Further, the question as to whether there is fraud itself can be decided only by taking evidence, which can more appropriately be done before the Tribunal. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext. P6 also in a revision petition before the Tribunal, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.