IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 W.P.(C).No. 20118 of 2008(T) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- BABU, S/O.SREEDHARAN, THERAMBIL HOUSE THAMBANKADAVU PO., PIN-680569, THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI. PRAVEEN HARHARAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR 3. KAREEM ALI, KARUPPAN VEETTIL HOUSE PO.KUNDALIYUR CHAVAKKAD TALUK THRISSUR BY GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K.R. DEEPA ADV. SRI. M.A. MANHU FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================== W.P.(C) NO. 20118 OF 2008-T ==================== Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, complaint is that an application for variation made by the 3rd respondent was granted by the 2nd respondent ignoring the objection raised by the petitioner. 2. Since it is admitted position that variation has been granted, copy of which has been produced by the 3rd respondent as Ext.R3(b), it is for the petitioner to pursue the remedies that are available to the variation granted in favour of the 3rd respondent. Learned counsel now complains that though he has applied to the 1st respondent for a copy of the order granting variation to the 3rd respondent, copy has not been issued. 3. If as stated by the petitioner, an application for copy of the proceedings has been received by the 1st respondent, on the production of copy of this judgment, the 1st respondent shall ensure that copy is served on the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp