IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19936 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- JOBY JACOB, NAMBUDAKATH HOUSE, MOONNILAVU, MANCOMBU, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.INEES RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 2. SRI.BABY AUGUSTINE, MADAKKAL HOUSE, PRAVITHANAM, PALA, KOTTAYAM DT. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 19936 OF 2008 W ==================== Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext.P11 as confirmed in Ext.P15 order on review petition filed by the petitioner are under challenge. 2. Shortly put, the matter arises from Ext.P2 fixing the time schedule of the 2nd respondent. Petitioner carried the matter in revision and that was rejected by Ext.P6. Ext.P6 was challenged before this court in WP(C) No.34699/07 and that was also dismissed. The judgment in the writ petition was called in question in WA No.294/08. The writ appeal was disposed of by Ext.P8. By this judgment, the Division Bench of this court set aside the judgment in the writ petition and directed that the matter shall be reconsidered by the Tribunal, adverting to the grievances urged by the petitioner. 3. It is stated that subsequent to Ext.P8 additional pleadings were filed and the matter was accordingly reconsidered. By Ext.P11, the Tribunal once again rejected the revision petition. Immediately thereafter, petitioner sought review of Ext.P11 by filing Ext.P12 review petition. That WPC 19936/08 :2 : was also considered along with the counters filed. By Ext.P15, the review was also dismissed. It is in this circumstances, writ petition has been filed. 4. A reading of Ext.P11 shows that the Tribunal has dealt with each one of the contentions urged by the petitioner. The grievance highlighted by the petitioner and the additional affidavit filed before the Tribunal after the matter was remanded by this court was also taken note of by the Tribunal and finally it was concluded by stating that the grievance with respect to Ext.P6 was unreal and imaginary. A reading of Ext.P15 order in review also shows that the Tribunal was not satisfied that there was any error apparent on the face of Ext.P11 warranting review of the said order. 5. On facts, I am satisfied that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the contentions and dealt with the grievances as urged by him. There is absolutely no merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp