Jagannadha Rao, CJ.

The correctness of the decision of this Court in Kunhikrishnan Nair v. R.T.O. Malappuram, 1991 (2) K.L.T. 266 (D.B.), in so far as it stated that the existing operators have aright to be heard before the grant of a permit under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, falls for consideration in this Writ Appeal, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg, etc. v. Union of India, JT'1991 (4) S.C. 447. The Writ Petition, out of which this Writ Appeal arises, was filed by Mathew Job impleading the appellant as the first respondent, and questioning the correctness of the order Ext. P4 dated 6-8-1991 passed by the State Transport appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called the "STAT"). By that order the STAT allowed the appeal filed by the appellant-society in part, and modified the order of the Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter called the "rta") dated 4-7-1991.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The Writ Petitioner, Mathew Job, is a stage carriage operator conducting service on the route Changanacherry - Mundakkayam (via) Karukachal, 14th mile and Ponkunnam. He is operating on the strength of a regular permit granted to his sta