D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The respondent No. 3 applied for permanent permit in the route Muzaffarnagar, Charthawal, Gadikham. Admittedly, this route falls within the notified scheme in respect of Saharanpur-Delhi route. The petitioner claims to be an operator on this very route pursuant to permanent permit granted to him since 1982. When the scheme was notified, the petitioners were operating on the basis of permanent permit that was valid on that point of time. Mr. L. P. Nalthanl. learned counsel for the petitioner contends that they had objected to the formulation of the scheme and was heard on the said objection. But despite such objection, the scheme was notified. Therefore, the petitioner along with many others had challenged the said scheme through a writ proceedings before this Court. The said writ petition having been dismissed, the petitioner had preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court in which an interim order of stay has been granted, and the same is still operating it is further contended by him that any grant of permanent permit to the respondent No. 3 adversely affects the interest of the petitioners and would prejudice their rights. Therefore, the petitioner had objected to the grant of permit before the Regional Transport Authority. The Regional Transport Authority by a resolution dated 26th September. 1994, contained in Annexure-1 and in respect of agenda No. 2 rejected the said application for grant of permanent permit made by the respondent No. 3 on the ground that the route on which the permit was sought for was part of the notified route in which 44 buses of the State Transport Undertaking are being operated in view of such notified scheme, a permanent permit could not be granted. Against these orders, the respondent No. 3 had preferred an appeal. The petitioner had applied for impleadment in the appeal in which the respondent No. 3 omitted to make the petitioner parties in the appeal. This application has since been rejected by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by an order dated 29th July. 1995 contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition which has since been challenged in this writ petition.
(2.) Mr. Naithani contends that since the petitioners right is being adversely affected, he has a right to be heard in respect of his objection, particularly in view of third proviso of Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act which prescribes that no order prejudicial to a person can be passed by the Tribunal without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the petitioner is a necessary party in the appeal and as such, the order impugned cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.
(3.) Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, contends that since the permanent permit was applied in respect of a part of a notified route, by reason of Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, such permanent permit can never be granted. Then again, according to him. Section 98 prescribes an overriding effect by reason whereof the provisions of Chapter V would not be attracted. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right to be impleaded in the appeal. But this Chapter V does not prescribe any right to an existing operator to oppose grant of permit. Therefore, the third proviso of Section 90 cannot be attracted to in respect of a matter covered under Section 104 of the Act. Even if the right of the petitioner is adversely affected by the reasons of the provisions contained under Section 80 of the said Act, the petitioner cannot claim any right to oppose the grant of permit and therefore he has no locus standi to seek additlon/impleadment in the appeal.;