IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2699 of 2008(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M. SIVADASAN, MADATHIL HOUSE, ARIKKULAM, P.O. KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 2699 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: January 23, 2008 JUDGMENT It is contended before me by the petitioner that while rendering Ext.P3 judgment, the STAT had not considered the arguments raised by the petitioner relying on the decision in Aysha v. RTA, Kasaragod – 2006 (3) KLT 1013, and also that the primary authority did not issue notice before Ext.P1 decision was taken. 2. These points are not seen urged when the appeal was heard, and, at any rate, these arguments are not seen reflected in Ext.P3 judgment. If, as contended by the counsel, these were urged but not considered, it is for the petitioner to seek review of Ext.P3. In view of this, with liberty to the petitioner to seek review of Ext.P3 judgment of the STAT, this writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-