AJITHKUMAR Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

(2.) EXT .P7 order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Kollam is under challenge. The Regional Transport Authority by proceedings dated 8/12/2010 considered the application for variation of the permit submitted by the 3rd respondent herein. The application for variation includes a curtailment of the existing route portion from Mavinmoodu to Kalluvathukkal (10 kms.). The Regional Transport Authority found that the proposed variation will adversely affect the travelling public, that there is no circumstantial change as envisaged in Rule 135(6) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and therefore the application was rejected. Ext.P2 order was passed after hearing the

(3.) EXT .P7 order is dated 7/8/2012. Proceedings was issued to the petitioner as per his request dated 20/9/2012. Petitioner submits that by this time the period for filing the revision petition has been expired and therefore he was unable to move the revision with a petition to condone the delay. Finding that urgent orders are necessary, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.