TYAGI, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition filed by the General Transport Service, Jaipur, is directed against the order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal, dated 27-7-1968, whereby the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, dt. 11 6-1968, rejecting the renewal application of the respondent No. 3 M/s. General Motor Bus Service was set aside and its permit was ordered to be renewed.
(2.) THE petitioner firm carried on the business of a bus operator plying its vehicles on different routes in the city of Jaipur including route No. 5 which overlaps Jaipur-Sanganer via Lalkothi Durgapur route. M/s. General Motor Bus Service was holding a non-temporary stage carriage permit on the Jaipur-Sanganer route in respect of vehicle RJX 219. This permit was to expire on 15-12-1967. It is alleged that before the expiry of the term of the said permit, respondent No. 3 transferred the permit along with the bus RJX 219 to one Gella Ram Mistry but no permission for such a transfer was obtained by the respondent No. 3 under sec. 59 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On 11th September, 1967, an application was filed by one Chhatu Mal for renewing the permit of the respondent No. 3 for bus No RJX 219. It so appears that Chhatu Mal appended his signature to the renewal application on behalf of M/s. General Motor Bus Service, Jaipur. On publication of the said renewal application in the Rajasthan Gazette, under S. 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the petitioner submitted objections through its Manager Shri R. K. Mathur, before the Regional Transport Authority, wherein it was contended that the vehicle in question had been sold with the route permit by the respondent No 3 to one Gella Ram Mistry and that Chhatu Mal had no locus standi to apply for the renewal of the said permit. When the matter came up for consideration before the Regional Transport Authority, Chhatu Mal was examined and in his cross-examination he admitted that he did not hold any power of attorney on behalf of M/s General Motor Bus Service. THE Regional Transport Authority wanted the original bus owner to be produced in person before it but Chhatu Mal failed to do so. In view of the objections filed by the petitioner, the Regional Transport Authority came to the conclusion that there was no reason to disbelieve the affidavit filed by the Manager of the petitioner Shri R. K. Mathur, that the permit and the vehicle were transferred in an unauthorised manner by the original permit holder and therefore the renewal could not be granted on an application filed by Chhatu Mal. M/s. General Motor Bus Service, Jaipur, then preferred an appeal before the Transport Appellate Tribunal. In the memo of the appeal filed by the respondent No. 3 it is mentioned that so far as it was known to the appellant (Respondent No. 3), no objections or representations were filed against the application for the renewal of the permit by any party. In the said appeal the respondent No. 3 did not implead the petitioner as a party who had actually filed objections against the renewal application. The petitioner's grievance is that by hiding this fact that the petitioner had filed the objections before the Regional Transport Authority against the application for renewal of the permit a fraud was played on the Transport Appellate Tribunal by respondent No. 3 who succeeded in getting the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority rejecting the renewal application reversed. The Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent No. 3 by its order dated 28th July, 1968. It is against this order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal that the petitioner has come to this Court by preferring this writ petition praying that the impugned order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal (Annexure 7) be quashed as it suffers from a vice of violating the principles of natural justice because the petitioner, on whose objection the renewal application of the respondent No. 3 was rejected, was not impleaded as a party in the appeal nor was he given any hearing before the Transport Appellate Tribunal. In spite of the notices served on the opposite party No. 3 M/s. General Motor Bus Service, Jaipur, and also on the Transport Appellate Tribunal and the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, nobody has appeared to contest this writ petition. The only contention that has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was a necessary party in the appeal before the Transport Authority and without impleading him as a party the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority rejecting the renewal application could not be set aside. In support of his plea, reliance has been placed by Mr. Gupta on 3 decisions of this Court: (1) Abdul Gafoor Versus State of Rajasthan (2) M/s. Jaisalwal Brothers vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Kota (3), Noor Mohd. vs. Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region, Jaipur. It cannot be denied that the petitioner was an existing bus operator on a route which overlapped the Jaipur-Sanganer route for which the permit of the respondent No. 3 was ordered to be renewed by the Transport Appellate Tribunal. This fact is also clearly borne out from the record that the petitioner had filed objections before the Regional Transport Authority against the renewal application filed by Chhatumal on behalf of M/s. General Motor Bus Service, Jaipur, and that the petitioner's General Manager had filed before the Regional Transport Authority an affidavit alleging that the permit relating to the vehicle No. RJX 219 was sold by General Motor Bus Service, Jaipur, to one Gella Ram Mistry. The petitioner has also placed on record the statement of Chhatumal (Annexure 4), wherein he has specifically admitted that he held no power of attorney on behalf of Atmaram, who was a partner of Messrs. General Motor Bus Service, Jaipur. This was also admitted by him that the business of M/s. General Motor Bus Service was looked after by Atmaram. In Abdul Gafoor (1) this Court has held - "persons lawfully plying their vehicles on a route acquire some sort of a proprietary right in the transport business on that particular route and when that right is affected, it is only fair and in consonance with well established principles of natural justice that they should be given an opportunity of being heard in the matter. " S. 64-F. when read with sec. 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, makes it clear that the persons providing transport facilities on a route, acquire a right to file an appeal against the order of the Regional Transport Authority if the permit is granted to some other person on that route in spite of the objection filed by such existing operators. In the present case if the order of the Regional Transport Authority had been passed in favour of the respondent No. 3, renewing its permit then the petitioner could have challenged that order of the Regional Transport Authority by preferring an appeal under S. 64 (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act. This scheme of the law shows that a person who has a vital interest in the grant or renewal of a permit on a route on which he also provides road transport service, he can file the objections against the application for the grant or renewal of a permit and if his objections are rejected by the Authority and the permit is granted or renewed he has a right to file an appeal under S. 64 (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In case his objections prevail with the Authority and if the aggrieved party prefers to challenge this order of the authority accepting the objection, by filing an appeal then such person who had filed the objections against the grant or renewal of the permit becomes under the Scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act a necessary party to the appeal. In this present case when the respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal before the Transport Appellate Tribunal against the order of the R. T. A. , it did not implead the petitioner in that appeal as a party and represented before the T. A. T. that no objection was filed by anybody against the renewal application before the Regional Transport Authority and the respondent No. 3 ultimately succeeded in getting an order in its favour on the strength of that misrepresentation. This Court in the above mentioned two unreported decisions, (2) (3) has held: "adequacy of services was undoubtedly a matter which the Regional Transport Authority was duty bound to consider and it was open to an objector to convince the Regional Transport Authority or for that matter the Transport Appellate Tribunal that the services already plying were adequate. In the circumstances the Transport Appellate Tribunal should not decide a matter without hearing the objectors who had filed objections before the Regional Transport Authority and were successful in getting the application of the appellant before the Transport Appellate Tribunal rejected at the hands of the Regional Transport Authority. In such a situation there was a decision of the Regional Transport Authority in favour of the objectors and before upsetting the decision it was the duty of the Transport Appellate Tribunal to hear the objector and when this is not done it results in violation of the principles of natural justice. " In the instant case, the renewal application, which was said to have been filed by respondent No. 3 was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority on the consideration of the objections filed by the petitioner and as the petitioner was vitally interested in the disposal of that application before the Transport Appellate Tribunal being the existing operator on a route which overlapped the route for which the renewal application was filed, it was necessary that the petitioner ought to have been impleaded as a respondent before the Transport Appellate Tribunal. In getting a decision at the back of the petitioner from the Transport Appellate Tribunal, the principles of natural justice have obviously been violated. The judgment of the Transport Appellate Tribunal, therefore, suffers from the defect of not complying with the principles of natural justice, which vitiates its order. The result is that the impugned order passed by the Transport Appellate Tribunal is set aside. Since nobody appears on behalf of the respondents, no order as to costs. .;