The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order. The petitioner was granted a permit by Ext.P1 in a total exclusion scheme. A private party as also K.S.R.T.C filed a revision against the same. Though the revision filed by the rival operator would not be sustainable, definitely, the K.S.R.T.C could move the revision on the ground of scheme route overlap. Ext.P4 was passed by the Tribunal revising the grant for reason that the route traverses through Kottayam to Neendoor, on a complete exclusion Scheme and it overlaps on the said Scheme from Kottayam to Neendoor. In such circumstance, there is no sustainable ground on which Ext.P4 could be interfered with. If the petitioner wants to modify the route, then necessarily the petitioner would have to make a further application. The writ petition is dismissed, reserving any claim for modification.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB // true copy // P.A To Judge.