A. MURUGAPPASWAMY Vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER and the 3rd respondent are stage carriage operators. The 3rd respondent had applied for variation of his permit, which was allowed by Ext.P2 order of the 1st respondent. The 3rd respondent challenged Ext.P3 by filing MVARP No. 217/07. The revision filed by the petitioner was rejected by Ext.P4 order and challenging Exts. P2 and P4, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THE Tribunal has not dealt with the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner. According to the Tribunal, petitioner lacked locus standi to maintain the revision petition, being a rival operator. It is on this ground that the Tribunal rejected the petitioner's revision petition.

(3.) ON the other hand, the counsel for the 3rd respondent would submit that the variation was in the interest of the travelling public and that the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the same.