IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 31519 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAMAL MUHAMMED, S/O.ISMAIL, TAJ HOUSE, EDAYAR STREET, MANKAVU, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 2. K.BABU, S/O.KUNJU, KALNADU, CHATHAMANGALAM TALUK, NEMMARA, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.STALIN PETER DAVIS FOR R2 GOVT. PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 31519 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 12th December, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a stage carriage operator. He seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext. P2 representation filed by him for revision of timing of his stage carriage permit. Counsel for the petitioner is absent. 2. From the exhibits produced, I find that the petitioner is seeking revision of timings settled as per Ext. P1 proceedings in October, 2008. If he is aggrieved by Ext. P1, he has an effective alternate remedy by way of approaching the State Transport Appellate Authority. He cannot, by filing a petition to revise timings, get Ext. P1 reviewed. He has also not shown any change of circumstances warranting a revision of timings within a period of barely 1½ months. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/