IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 8759 of 2009(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOJI EDATTEL, EDATTEL HOUSE, KALLOORKAD P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.8759 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that he made an application for variation of permit and by Ext.P1 the RTA, Erakulam has already given its concurrence. Despite the concurrence so granted by Ext.P1, when the matter came up again for consideration before the first respondent on 25.11.2008, the first respondent adjourned the proceedings with a direction to seek concurrence from the RTA Ernakulam. It is in the above circumstances the writ petition is filed. As stated above, it is the case of the petitioner that by Ext.P1 concurrence has already been granted and if so there is no justification for seeking concurrence once again. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the request of the petitioner for variation, taking into account Ext.P1, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 3 months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) vi JUDGE