1. The brief facts of the case are as following:

The second respondent is the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No. KLY 9250 covered by a regular permit on the route Thykattussery, Cherthala that is valid up to 7.1.2003. The said vehicle had defaulted service and finding the vacancy the petitioner had made an application in respect of his stage carriage No. KL-04/L.5524. Ext. P1 is the permit so granted as a substituted service. It is issued for four months and is valid up to 21.2.2003.

2. While the petitioner was so conducting service on the strength of Ext. P1, a copy of the order dated 20.11.2002 issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Alappuzha (Ext. P2) had been served on him. This showed that a temporary permit was granted for four months in respect of state carriage No. KL-04/J. 8929 in the place of KLY 9250 in favour of the registered owner of vehicle No. KLY 9250 (2nd respondent). Reference is made to Ext. P1 proceedings in the text of the order, but it is stated that:

"In the meantime, the regd. owner in respect of S.C. KLY 9250 and KL. 04/J. 8929 jointly submitted a lease agreement in a stamp paper worth Rs. 50/-. It is stated that the regd. owner in respect of S.C. KL. 04/J. 8929 agreed to give the vehicle to Sri. Cherian, regd. owner in respect of S.C. KLY 9250 to conduct service in place of defaulted vehicle on the basis of hire for a period of 4 months. Sri. Cherian had applied for substitute T.P. for 4 months in respect of S.C. KL. 04/J. 8929 in place of S.C. KLY 9250."

The resultant position was that Ext. P1 was to be treated as impliedly cancelled, though no formal orders have been issued. As Ext. P2 adversely affected the petitioner, the Original Petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grant in favour of the petitioner is valid for four months in the defaulted vacancy and the grant did not incorporate any condition that the stage carriage will have to be taken off the road in any such contingency. He submits further that he was not heard before Ext. P2 order was issued and the proceedings violated principles of natural justice. It is pointed out by him that the vehicle now claimed as made available, is already having a hire purchase agreement with a financier and it would not have been possible for arranging a lease in respect of the vehicle with the second respondent and the transaction claimed was illegal, inoperative and also sham. He further submits that so long as he admittedly was not the registered owner of the vehicle now sought to be introduced, the Secretary, RTA erred in passing the order and it was therefore liable to be set aside.

4. The Original Petition had been entertained at a time when the regular sitting of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal had not commenced for want of notification. Taking note of the legal aspects involved and the contention of the petitioner that the present grant is irregular, the matter was decided to be examined in these proceedings.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent and he submits that there were no principles of natural justice involved. The operation with the original stage carriage was found impossible, since it became an out modelled vehicle and a substitution had been attempted to in the aforesaid context. As the petitioner was permitted to operate specifically in a vacancy, when the original permit holder came prepared with a new vehicle the petitioner had no scope for contending that he will not leave the scene. He claimed that the arrangement for making available a stage carriage on lease basis was not irregular as suggested, and reference was made to the judgment of this Court, reported in 1990 (2) KLT 885 (Dakshayani v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal). According to him, Ext. P2 was valid, issued with jurisdiction and the petitioner had no place, when once the new grant became operative.

6. In view of the interim orders passed, the pe