IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 10735 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- O.VINODAN, S/O.GOPALAN, ANITHALAYAM, P.O.MUNDALOOR, KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT: ------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 10735 of 2008 EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DT. 7.9.2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT. 20.2.2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED ON 8.2.2008. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.10735 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner seeks revision of his timings in respect of his permit in the route Kottiyoor Ambalam – Thalassery. The petitioner has not stated anywhere in the writ petition as to when exactly his timings were settled, which the petitioner seeks revision of. But it is clear that the timings were re-settled pursuant to Ext.P2, whereby the petitioner's application for regular variation was granted subject to settlement of timings. Ext.P2 is dated 20.2.2008. Therefore, the settlement of timings must have been only subsequent to 20.2.2008. If that be so, the conditions necessary for revision of timings are clearly absent. If the petitioner has got a case that the settlement of timings is in any way vitiated, the remedy of the petitioner lies in filing a revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, without prejudice to such right, this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd