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 stage carriage bearing No. KLB 874 granted in 1969. While so, the appellant-society applied for the grant of a permit on the route Mundakkayam - Trikkunnapuzha touching Harippad. This is an inter-District route passing through three Districts, namely, Alapuzha, Pathanamthitta and Kottayam. This route overlaps the entire route of the Writ Petitioner's service from Changanacherry to Mundakkayam for 55 Kms. The length of the route Mundakkayam - Thrikkunnapuzha is 98 KMs. The appellant-society had applied for, and obtained, temporary permits to operate on this route. However, later when the society applied for regular permit, it changed one of the inter-mediate points, namely, Kanam. Instead of Kanam, it wanted to operate (via) 14th mile. The route Changanacherry-Mundakkayam (via) 14th mile is extremely overcrowded, and major portion of the route overlaps Kottayam-Kumily road. On this route, there is one bus every minute and it is impossible, according to the petitioner, to accommodate additional service in this route without the danger of racking and consequential accidents. The consideration of the society's application was notified and the writ petitioner, and other existing operators, appeared before the RTA at the time of consideration of the appellant's application, and objected tothe grant of a permit. They contended that the grant of a permit, as applied for by the appellant, would result in extreme hardship to existing operators, and would strain the already crowded route further. The RTA, Kottayam, passed an order on 4-7-1991 stating that it had heard the applicant, and the objectors, Mathew Job, DTO, Changanacherry and Jose kutty Joseph, that all the objectors wanted to ensure that the appellant's vehicle be operated through Kanam through which place it was operating. The appellant was informed that there was no change of timing. The RTA therefore granted the permit, subject to the above. condition, that it would operate through Kanam.

3. Against the said order of the RTA, the appellant-society filed appeal before the STAT. In the memorandum of ground, Ext. P3, it is stated that the objectors contended before the RTA that permit may be granted through Kanam, through which route the appellant is operating for some time on the strength of the temporary permits, and that the appellant requested that permit may be granted through 14th mile, but the existing operators objected thereto. The appellant contended before the STAT that the existing operators can'object only regarding timings'. In the instant case there was no change in the timings, and that therefore, the RTA erred in granting a conditional permit to the appellant-society. The RTA had varied the route through Kanam instead of 14th mile, and it should not have done merely because the existing