IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2008 / 18TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 22014 of 2006(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JOHNSON, S/O. LONAPPAN, CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, MUNDOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. R.T.A., THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SECRETARY, R.T.A., THRISSUR. 3. P. SOUNDARA RAJAN, PREETHI HOUSE, PUSHPAGIRI, AGRAHARAM ROAD, P.O. POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR. 4. A. BABU, VADAKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE, RARICHAN ROAD, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE. 5. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. * ADDL. R6 IMPLEADED 6. A.S.PALANISWAMY, S/O. SENNIAPPAN, 4/611, VADAKARAPATHY, VELANTHAVALAN, PALAKKAD. *ADDL. R6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 1.11.06 IN IA. 15108/06. ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA FOR R3 SRI.I.DINESH MENON FOR ADDL.R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 25970 OF 2006, WP(C) 5334/2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C).NOs.22014/06,25970/06 & 5334/2007 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT In these three writ petitions, the challenge is against the order of the STAT in MVARP.No.91/2006. The subject matter of that revision petition was the proceedings of the Secretary, RTA dated 22.12.2005, allowing the revision of timing sought for by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said revision of timing, the 3rd respondent in WP(c). No.22014/2006 had filed MVARP.No.91/2006. That revision was allowed by the order dated 9th August, 2006. It is this order which is under challenge in WP(c).No.22014/2006. 2. The order of the STAT shows that the STAT was satisfied that the timing allotted to the petitioner in WP(c). No.22014/2006 did not warranting a revision. Further it was also concluded that there was absolutely no change of 2 circumstance, which is a condition precedent for exercising the power of revision of timings. It is on these two grounds the order of the Secretary, RTA was set aside by the Tribunal. 3. On the materials, I see absolutely no justification to interfere with the order of the STAT. Be that as it may, counsel for the petitioner in WP(c).No.22014/2006 submits that in view of the long lapse of time he wants to make fresh application for revision of his own timing. This he will be free to do, in which case, that shall be considered. WP (c).No.22014/2006 is accordingly dismissed. WP(c).Nos.25970/2006 and 5334/2007 also arise from the order of the STAT in MVARP.No.91/2006. Since that order is upheld in the manner as above, these writ petitions are also dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 3