IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 10485 of 2008(W) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- C.D.JOY, CHEMMAYATH HOUSE, NEDUMPAL THOTTIPPAL, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY , THRISSUR. 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 10485 OF 2008 W = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd May, 2008. J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P1 as confirmed in Ext. P3. Ext. P1 is an order rejecting revision of timing against which petitioner filed Ext. P2 revision and that was also rejected by the Tribunal as per Ext. P3. The contention that is now raised before me is that in terms of the time schedule attached to Ext. P1, on various occasions the vehicle will have to idle with passengers. However, it does not appear that this point has been raised before the appellate authority. Similarly, the other contention raised is that Ext. p1 settlement of timing has been done without a timing conference. That again is not a matter which has been raised before the revisional authority. Hence, I am not prepared to consider these issues raised only now. Going though Exts. P1 and P3, I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for interference. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-