IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2483 of 2011(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAKEER HUSSAIN, S/O.S.A.WAHAB, MEHOBOOB MANZIL P.O.,VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGODE BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.R.KIRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KASARAGODE BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.2483 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is operating the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-14D-5657 on the route Kasargod-Madhur on the strength of Ext.P2 regular permit issued on 14.12.2009. With a view to seek a revision of the time schedule, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application to the respondent. On receipt of that application, the respondent called for a report from the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Kasargod. After receipt of the report, the respondent sent Ext.P4 letter dated 17.1.2011 to the petitioner informing him that his request in Ext.P3 cannot be considered. Hence this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 and seeking a direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P3 application and to pass orders thereon, after affording the petitioner and other operators who would be affected by the change of timings an opportunity of being heard. 2. A reading of Ext.P4 indicates that the request of the petitioner in Ext.P3 stands rejected, though the words used are 'request cannot be considered'. The implication is that the request stands rejected. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should move the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by filing a revision petition under section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. W.P.(C) No.2483 of 2011 2 I accordingly decline jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition leaving open the contentions of the petitioner and reserving liberty with him to challenge Ext.P4 by filing a revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.