ORDER :

The writ petitioner applied for permit to operate mini bus from Puthanatham to Kaulpannai on 04.12.2002. Since the Regional Transport Authority did not pass any order on the said application, the petitioner filed W.P. (MD)No.1786 of 2003 and by order dated 22.01.2003, the authority was directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the said application. Probably foreseeing some difficulties, the petitioner submitted an application seeking permit for a modified route that is from Puthanatham to Kadaipitchampatti. By order dated 28.07.2003, the said application was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. By order dated 01.11.2004, the appeal was allowed and the rejection order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the file of the authority with a direction to consider the petitioner's request to modify the route and in the event of modified route satisfying the legal requirement to grant permit. The reason for passing the said order was because even though the authority was quite clear that the modification application has been filed, what was considered and rejected was the application for the original route. This was characterized by the Tribunal as a clear case of non-application of mind.

2. The remand order with the aforesaid direction passed by the Tribunal was put to challenge by the second respondent herein in W.P.No.37200 of 2004. The said writ petition was dismissed on 07.05.2005 and the High Court directed the Regional Transport Authority to consider the petitioner's application for grant of permit. The authority came to the conclusion that the overlapping served sector exceeded the prescribed limit of 4 kms. The road condition was also characterized as not fit at certain point. In that view of the matter, the application came to be rejected vide order dated 07.02.2008. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed M.V.Appeal No.57 of 2008 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The appeal was allowed by order dated 03.09.2009 and the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Trichy was set aside. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration with permission to curtail the route so as to bring the served sector within the norms. Availing the said liberty, the petitioner filed an application for modifying the route from Puthanatham to Karuppur.

3. In the meanwhile G.O. Ms. No.136 Home (Transport III) Department dated 23.02.2011 was issued and a new comprehensive scheme was issued. The petitioner's application was once again rejected vide order dated 30.05.2011 by referring to G.O. Ms. No.136, dated 23.02.2011. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed M.V.Appeal No.57 of 2011 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The petitioner also filed W.P.(MD)No.5614 of 2012 questioning the G.O. One Mahalingam had also filed W.P.(MD)No.2893 of 2011 challenging the new scheme. By order dated 18.04.2018, the said Government Order was quashed. W.P.(MD)No.5614 of 2012 filed by the petitioner was closed by recording the fact that the issue has already been settled. W.A. (MD)No.13 of 2020 filed by the Government was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 17.01.2020.

4. In view of these developments, by order dated 11.04.2019, M.V. Appeal No.57 of 2011 was allowed and the rejection order was set aside by the Tribunal and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration. It was noted that since the new comprehensive scheme, 2011 has been quashed by the High Court, the earlier 1999 scheme alone continued to prevail. Following the order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner's application was once again taken up. In fact hearing notices were also issued to all the interested parties. Since there was no progress, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.19846 of 2019, challenging the deferment of the proceedings. By order dated 06.12.2019, the Regional Transport Authority was directed to pass