IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER Suresh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal & Anr. (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.2595/2006) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Date of Order: December 03, 2008 PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Mr. M.B. Sharma] for the petitioners. Mr. S.K.Ajmera ] Mr. M.A. Khan, Dy. GA for the State. Mr. K.C. Sharma on behalf of Mr. Mukesh Kumar, for the intervenor. BY THE COURT: The petitioners have challenged the order dated 15-12- 2005 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (“The Tribunal” for short) to the limited extent that the Tribunal held the permit of the petitioners invalid along with others. 2. It is the petitioners' case that four appeals were filed before the Tribunal. However, in none of these appeals, the petitioners were ever impleaded as a party. Despite the fact that the petitioners were not given opportunity of hearing, in the operative portion of the impugned order the learned Tribunal has observed that the permits given to other persons are also quashed and set aside. According to the petitioners, this operative portion of the order was pronounced behind their back. Hence, this petition before this court. 3. Mr. K.C. Sharma, appearing on behalf of Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the intervenor, has contended that the controversy with regard to Begun-Rawatbhata via Singola route was raised before the Tribunal in other matters. One Nisar Ahmad had filed a writ petition, SBCWP No.549/2006, before the Principal seat of this Court at Jodhpur. The said writ petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 23-10-2007. Subsequently a Special Appeal (writs) [DBCSA (W) No.963/2007] was filed, which was dismissed on 5-11- 2007. He has further contended that the petitioners have sought permission to file Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, vide order dated 28-3-2008 Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the said petition. Thus, the present case is covered by the judgment rendered in Nisar Ahmed's case. 4. On the other hand, Mr. M.B. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that while Nisar Ahmed was party before the Tribunal, the petitioners were not. Therefore, the factual matrix of the case stand on two different footings. Hence, the judgment pronounced by the principal seat is inapplicable in the present case. He has further contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had rejected the permission with the direction that the petitioners are free to go before the appropriate authority to voice their grievance. 5. Be that as it may, the fact remains that one of the settled principles of law is that any adverse order cannot be passed against a person without giving him an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before passing any adverse order. Therefore, this court has no other option but to remand the case back to the Tribunal to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before passing any order. 6. Hence, the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 15-12- 2005 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners and the case is remanded back to the Tribunal to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is also clarified that the petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all factual and legal grounds before the Tribunal. The intervenor is also free to bring to the notice of the Tribunal all aspects of the case. The Tribunal is expected to decide the case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of as indicated above without any order as to costs. ( R.S. CHAUHAN ) J. arn