The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P4 order of remand. The brief facts are that the 2nd respondents timings were settled and immediately thereafter the 2nd respondent filed an application for revision. The same was rejected and the 2nd respondent was before the Tribunal raising a contention that he was not heard before the order of rejection was passed. The Tribunal ordered a remand. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the remand order since, the contention against Ext.P3 rejection were not at all considered by the Tribunal. In any event, since almost five years had passed from the date of the order and the remand order was stayed, there would be no purpose in considering the application afresh, as per the remand order. However, if the 2nd respondent makes an application for revision before the authority, considering the passage of time and also considering the contention WPC.No.28491/2009 : 2 :
of the 2nd respondent that he only sought for a vacant time slot, the application could be considered by the Secretary, RTA, however, with notice to the affected parties. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything in its merits.
Writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge