The petitioner is aggrieved with the rejection of the variation sought for by the petitioner in the route in which he was running a stage carriage.
2. The petitioner was admittedly operating in the route Pala - Kaloor. A variation of the route was sought for, seeking extension to Erattupetta from Pala. Concurrence was sought for, from the sister Regional Transport Authority [RTA], viz., RTA, Kottayam, by the RTA Ernakulam. That was declined by Exhibit P1. As a consequence, Exhibit P2 order was issued declining the variation.
3. The petitioner had challenged Exhibit P1 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal [STAT]. The Tribunal directed reconsideration of grant of concurrence by the RTA, Kottayam. The RTA, Kottayam has now granted concurrence by Exhibit P4. The RTA, Ernakulam, hence, has to look at the issue again, de hors Exhibit P2 order passed earlier. Exhibit P2, being a consequential order of Exhibit P1, does not exist as of now.
WP(C).No.26648 of 2014 - 2 -
4. The learned Government Pleader submits, on instruction, that the matter will be considered in the next meeting of the RTA. It is submitted that, today there is a meeting of the RTA, Ernakulam, for which the agenda has already been finalised and therefore, it may not be possible to consider the matter today.
In the above circumstance, recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader, the writ petition is disposed of, directing consideration of the application of the petitioner for variation of the route, de hors Exhibit P2, afresh and in accordance with law.
vku.
Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran, Judge ( true copy )