THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29292 of 2010 ORDER: The 3rd respondent was granted a pucca permission on the route from Manesamudram to Hindupur Municipal bus stand. He was permitted to open 12 singles on the route with night halt at Manesamudram. The permit was transferred in favour of the petitioner on 05.10.2009 with the approval of the 1st respondent. The petitioner purchased a vehicle and was operating the same on the route. The 3rd respondent applied to the 1st respondent for grant of permit on the same route. The 1st respondent rejected the application on the ground that he has already transferred the permit that was granted to him. Aggrieved thereby, the 3rd respondent filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was allowed through order, dated 23.09.2010. The petitioner challenges the same. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that she was not impleaded as a party either in the proceedings before the 1st respondent or in the appeal being A.P.No.3 of 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was on a specific representation made by the 3rd respondent as to the viability of the route that she got a permit transferred and had put the vehicle on the route. She contends that any additional permit granted on the same route would adversely affect her rights. Learned Government Pleader for Transport submits that the Tribunal has passed orders in accordance with law and no interference is warranting with the impugned order. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that neither the petitioner nor any other existing operators would have any right to be heard in the proceedings pertaining to grant of additional permit. It is true that the Supreme Court and this Court held that whenever an application is filed for grant of an additional permit on a route, the existing permit holders are not entitled to be heard. In the instant case however, the petitioner is none other than the transferee of the permit from the 3rd respondent. The nature of representation made by the 3rd respondent or assurance given to the transferee are matters, which need to be taken into account, by the concerned authority. As a matter of fact, the 2nd respondent rejected the application of the 3rd respondent on the ground that he had transferred a permit granted to him on that route. The appellate tribunal ought to have insisted that the petitioner must be made a party in the appeal before it. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order, dated 23.09.2010 in A.P.No.3 of 2008 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal, after the 3rd respondent impleads the petitioner as a party to the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:06.04.2011 lmv THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8617 of 2011 01.04.2011 lmv