DANE SHOM Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved with the non consideration of a regular permit application, on the terms, as it existed on the date of application, ie, 17.01.2006.

(2.) THE facts to be noticed are that concurrence was rejected by the sister R.T.A. at Alappuzha. The petitioner filed revision, in which the Tribunal granted a remand on condition that the petitioner would file a modified route. It is to be immediately noticed that in such circumstance, the petitioner's contention that his application should be considered on the terms as existed at the date of application, cannot be countenanced. Even then there was scheme violation on the ground of objectionable overlapping.

(3.) EVEN in the modified route, the sister R.T.A. at Alappuzha rejected concurrence, which was set aside by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. As per the directions in Ext.P6, R.T.A., Alapuzha granted concurrence by Ext.P7. However, by that time there was a draft scheme in operation and the R.T.A. Ernakulam rejected the permit application by Ext.P8.