IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 26646 of 2008(V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.K.SAJEEVAN, CHALIYAPARAMBA HOUSE, P.O.VENGAD, KANNUR. BY ADV. MR.O.D.SIVADAS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. K.P.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.LATE K.K. NARAYANAN NAIR, KURUNTHAZHA PUTHEN VEEDU, CHELORA PO., MOWANCHERY, KANNUR. 2. RAJESH RAMAN, S/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN, `SAVERA', CHAKKARAKKAL P.O., MOWANCHERY, KANNUR. 3. PANKAJA PURUSHOTHAMAN, KANNOTH HOUSE, PO.MAAMBA, CHAKKARAKKAL, KANNUR. 4. SANGEETHA VALSALAN, `SAVEREA' CHAKKARAKKAL P.O., MANNANCHERY, KANNUR. 5. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR. 6. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.ANIL SIVARAMAN, R5 & R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.26646/2008-V: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 25/04/2007. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 30/05/2007. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION PETITION DTD. 13/08/2007. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER IN MVARP NO. 353/2007 DTD. 17/12/2007 PASSED BY THE STAT. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER IN MVARP NO. 353/2007 DTD. 21/07/2008 PASSED BY THE STAT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 26646 of 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT This matter arises from Exhibit P1, an order refusing the timings sought for by the petitioner. After several grounds of litigation, following the judgment of Division Bench in W.A No.207/2008, the matter was remanded to the STAT and STAT by Exhibit P6 order confirmed Exhibit P1. It was thereupon this writ petition came to be filed. When this writ petition came up for orders today, counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to file a fresh application before the 5th respondent seeking revision of his own timings. Taking this submission into account, the writ petition is disposed of directing that it will be open to the petitioner to file a fresh application, in which event, the 5th respondent shall consider the same with notice to all. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm