IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2008 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1929 RP.No. 212 of 2008(R) ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.36692/2007 Dated 19/12/2007 .............................. REVIEW PETITIONER/NON PARTY -------------------------------------------- P.B.RAMADAS, S/O.SIVA SANKARAN, PUTHANPURAKKAL HOUSE, KERALASSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.HARIKRISHNAN RAVINDRAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. R.RAJAN, SARASWATHI NIVAS, KURICHAMKULAM, P.O.KALLEKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD ADV. SRI. G. HARIHARAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. No. 212 of 2008 in W.P.(C) No.36692 of 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of March, 2008 O R D E R In this Review Petition, the petitioner contends that the judgment was erroneous in as much as, once timing is settled, if a party is aggrieved the remedy is not to file a representation and pursue the matter before the Secretary, R.T.A., but to seek revision of the order by the STAT invoking Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Since the writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage and this point was not urged, this Court did not have occasion to consider this aspect. 2. In the Review Petition, the 1st respondent, the writ petitioner, entered appearance and now submits that pursuant to the judgment under review, the 1st respondent had considered the representation and on its rejection the matter was taken up in revision before the STAT. It is also stated that the STAT has RP No. 212/08 in W.P.(C) No.36692/07 -2- disposed of the revision itself directing reconsideration of the representation by the Secretary, RTA. 3. Although I am inclined to agree with the counsel for the Review Petitioner that the remedy available to the 1st respondent was to seek revision of the order of the Secretary, RTA, fixing the timings, in view of the subsequent developments, no useful purpose will be served by reviewing the judgment and and reconsidering the entire matter on merits. In view of this, all that I need now is to clarify that it will be open to the Secretary, RTA, before whom the matter now stands remitted, to consider the entire matter on merits including the very maintainability of the representation that was filed by the 1st respondent herein. Review Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-