The legal representatives of the deceased objector are entitled to continue the objection, but it is not obligatory for the applicant seeking a stage carriage permit to bring the legal representatives of the deceased objector on record.

( 1 ) IN these three writ petitions, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of the Karnataka state road transport appellate tribunal, allowing the appeal presented by respondent No. 3 in each of these petitions arid granting stage carriage permit, on the ground that the petitioner had not been impleaded as a respondent to the appeal.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case, are these:a stage carriage permit on the route thamballapalli to chintamani was held by one c. Puttanna chetty, in the first instance. The said permit had been transferred in favour of pyarejan saheb, the husband of the petitioner, by an endorsement dated 25-1-1979. Respondent No. 3 in each of the petitions had filed application for stage carriage permit on a route which overlapped the route in respect of which the husband of the petitioner held a stage carriage permit. The said pyarejan saheb filed objections to the applications. During the pendency of the applications before the state transport authority, pyarejan saheb died on 11-4-1984. Nearly two years four months thereafter, on 14-8-1986, the state transport authority rejected the applications of respondent No. 3 in each of the petitions. The matter was taken in appeal before the state transport appellate tribunal. The appeal was allowed by order dated 21-11-1987. Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner has presented these petitions.

( 3 ) THE sole contention urged in the writ petitions was that the petitioner was a necessary party to the appeal before the state transport appellate tribunal as her husband pyarejan saheb wss an objector and therefore the order of the appellate authority was liable to ba set aside on the ground that the necessary party was not made a party in the appeal.

( 4 ) WHEN the matter came up beforemuralidher rao, j, for preliminary hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, relied on a judgment of this court rendered by another learned judge, in Venkatachaliah v K. S. T. A. T. , (ILR 1987 KAR. 796 ). In the said case, the learned judge had held that when an objector to an application for stage carriage permit dies, his legal representatives were entitled to continue the objections. The learned judge further held that it was obligatory for the applicant to bring the legal representatives of the deceased objector on record, and that though the Provisions of order 22 of the C. . C. Were not made applicable to the, proceedings before the R. T. A. Or the S. T. A. , it must be applied and therefore unless the legal representatives of the deceased objector was not brought on record, the proceedings cannot continue. The learned judge referred the matter to division bench under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, as he considered that the judgment rendered in the case of venkatachaliah - (1), might require reconsideration. Accordingly, the matter has come up before us for preliminary hearing.

( 5 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. On material facts, there is no dispute. Though originally one puttanna chetty was the holder of the stage carriage permit on the route thamballapalli to chintamani, the same had been transferred in favour of the husband of the petitioner by an endorsement mads as early as on 25-1-1979. Shortly thereafter, on 19-2-1979 pyarejan saheb filed objections to the applications presented by respondent No. 3 in each of the petitions for grant of stage carriage permit on a route which overlapped the route, in respect of which pyarejan saheb held the stage carriage permit. But it so happened that the proceedings continued for more than seven years. During the pendency of the proceedings, on 11-4-84 pyarejan saheb died. After the death of pyarejan saheb the petitioner did not make any application before the state transport authority stating that she was continuing the objections filed by her late husband. The state transport authority, as stated earlier, passed a final order on 14-8-1986 rejecti