IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 1235 of 2008(V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- A.C.JOSE, ANNIYIL HOUSE, KATTANAM P.O., PALLICKAL, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MR.. SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.1235/2008 V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE TIMINGS OF KL-4/U 4861. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 5/06/2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 9/07/2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DTD. 10/08/2007 IN M.V.A.R.P.NO.395/2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 24/11/2007 IN M.V.A.R.P. NO.395/2007. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 1235 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: APRIL 4, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition petition is against Ext.P3 as confirmed by Ext.P5. 2. The matter arises from an application for revision of timings. The RTA rejected the same on the ground that there is no change of circumstance. This has been confirmed by the STAT as well. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Secretary, RTA who dealt with his application did not hear him. Though this ground has been taken in Ext.P4 memorandum of revision, it is not a ground which is seen to have been urged before the Tribunal. Petitioner also has no case in the writ petition that this contention was urged, but has not been considered. 4. If that be so, having given up this plea before the revisional authority, it is not open for the petitioner to urge the same in the writ petition. That apart, both the authorities are consistent that WP(C) 1235/08 Page numbers there has not been any change of circumstance. This factual finding cannot be upset in this proceedings. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-