IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8389 of 2009(P)
1. C.R.MANOHARAN, S/O.LATE RAGHAVAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, R.T.A. ERNAKULAM.
3. SIBI JOHN, PULINGAPPALLIL HOUSE
4. TOMY CHANDY, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE
5. M.V.THOMAS, MEENKOLIL HOUSE
6. JOHN THOMAS, MYALIL HOUSE, KALLARA SOUTH
7. G.PRAKASH, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
8. J.JOSEPH, PRESIDENT, ATHIRAMPUZHA GRAMA
For Petitioner :SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :01/04/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.8389 OF 2009
------------------------
Dated this the Ist day of April, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P8 and P9.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the petitioner
sought revision of his timings by filing an application resulting in
Ext.P1. He was not satisfied by the timings as revised. Therefore he
filed yet another application for revision of timings that resulted in
Ext.P3 order. Against Ext.P3 order, petitioner filed a revision before
the Tribunal, as MVARP.No.137/08 resulting in Ext.P5. Against that
order certain rival operators filed writ petition before this court and
by judgment dated 5.11.2008, this court set aside the order and
remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
3. The Tribunal accordingly reconsidered the matter and
rejected the revision. Thereafter against the initial order, namely
Ext.P1, petitioner filed a revision as MVARP.No.441/08 along with
MP.No.2929/08 praying for condonation of delay of 363 days. The
delay condonation application was rejected by Ext.P8 and the
WP(c).No.8389/09 /2/
revision itself is rejected by Ext.P9. It is challenging Exts.P8
and P9 that this writ petition is filed.
4. A reading of Ext.P8 shows that the Tribunal was not
satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner that because he
was wrongly prosecuting the matter with the delay has
occurred. Having gone through Ext.P8 I have no reason to
take a view different from what has been taken by the
Tribunal, I have no reason to interfere with Exts.P8 and P9.
Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
WP(c).No.8389/09 /2/