IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 R.P.No. 368 of 2008(F) -------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.682/2008 Dated 20/02/2008 ..................................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- A.D.DIVYA, W/O SETHUMADHAVAN, KANNANKERAN HOUSE, BEACH ROAD, CHAVAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT: --------------------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY/ THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== R.P No.368 OF 2008 IN W.P.(C) NO. 682 OF 2008 F ==================== Dated this the 25th day of March, 2008 O R D E R The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 20th of February, 2008 recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader that Ext.P1 application for revision of timings was considered and was rejected by the RTA. In this review petition filed by the petitioner, what is stated is that to avoid a judgment in this writ petition, the respondent disposed of the matter without hearing the parties. 2. Irrespective of whether the petitioner has been heard or not, fact remains that Ext.P1 has been rejected. If petitioner was not heard that may be a circumstance invalidating the decision taken on Ext.P1. Therefore what is appropriate is that the petitioner should seek the remedies that are available against the decision rendered by the respondent on Ext.P1 and no grounds are made out for review of the judgment. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the decision taken as above, this review petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp