IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 RP.No. 790 of 2008(G) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.8468/2007 Dated 23/10/2007 .................... PETITIONERS/NON-PARTY -------------------------------------- 1. M.RAMACHANDRAN, KIZHAKKEPATTIL HOUSE, P.O.PANG SOUTH, KULATHOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. V.P.MUHAMMEDALI, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KULATHOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- 1. P.HUSSAIN, PALAKKAL HOUSE, PAINKANNOOR, KUTTIPPURAM, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.NAZAR, PANAKAVIL HOUSE, PAINKANNOOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 4. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- R.P.No.790/2008 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008 O R D E R In the judgment sought to be reviewed, though the impugned order rejecting the application for revision of timing was not interfered with, this court reserved liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application. Petitioners herein submit that since the matter is already settled by Annexure- 1 and Ext.P6, the liberty granted is erroneous. It is stated that, in pursuance to the judgment, an application was made by the writ petitioner and that the timing conference is now scheduled again. 2. It may be true that, in the past the applications made may have been rejected. But if there are changed circumstances, it may be open to the writ petitioner to make a fresh application. Therefore the previous orders by itself RP.No.790/08 2 will not disentitle him from moving the authority concerned. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to review the judgment. But however, I clarify that it will be open to the petitioners to appear in the timing conference and urge their contentions against the request for revision of timings sought for by the writ petitioner. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. RP.No.790/08 3