IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15223 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C. BASHEER , CHERIYANDY HOUSE KADALOOR P.O., KOYILANDY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR. 2. T. SUBHASH, S/O. T.N. MUKUNDAN MADAPPURAKKAL MUKTHI NIVAS, PARASSINIKADVU, KANNUR. 3. C.K. SATHI, W/O. RAJAN, GEETHA NIVAS, VENGAD, KUTHUPARAMBA. 4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM. R1 & 4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI K.V.MANOJKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 15223 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: MAY 29, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4 as confirmed in Ext.P7. By Ext.P4, the 1st respondent allowed revision of timings of the 3rd respondent pursuant to Ext.P3 application made by him. That was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal by filing Ext.P5 revision petition which met with the dismissal as per Ext.P7. It is in the aforesaid circumstance that this writ petition has been filed. 2. The contentions raised are that in the process of revising the timings of the 3rd respondent by Ext.P3, the timings as stated in Ext.P1 was modified. It is stated that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to interfere with the timings of the petitioner as per Ext.P1 order of the RTA, Vadakara. It is also stated that there was no circumstance justifying revision of timings. WP(C) 15223/08 2 3. However, on a reading of Ext.P7, the order rendered by the STAT, it is seen that the alleged inconvenience caused by the revision of timings was the only point that was urged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has specifically noted that the petitioner failed to show that there is any violation of any statutory requirements. In the light of the above contentions, I hold that the contentions now raised against Ext.P7 were not urged before the Tribunal and hence I am not inclined to consider the plea now raised. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to Ext.P8 judgment contends that the Tribunal is bound to consider all the contentions raised. This is a proposition of law on which there cannot be any quarrel. However, the Tribunal is expected to consider only the contentions that are urged before it. A litigant may raise several contentions in the memorandum of revision. But when the submissions are made, it need not be covering all the points that are raised in the pleadings and the Tribunal is only expected to deal with the contentions that are urged during the WP(C) 15223/08 3 course of the submissions. In this case, a reading of Ext.P7 shows that the Tribunal has dealt with the contentions that were urged before it during the course of the hearing. Therefore Ext.P8 judgment, in my view, is of no relevance. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-