Order of rejection is appealable.

The petitioner is a Slate owned transport undertaking, operating stage carriage services in the entire North Arcot Ambedkar District/ Tiruvannamalai-Sambuvaravar District and also on the inter district and inter-state routes. The first respondent made an application for the grant of stage carriage permit before the second respondent in respect of the route Vellore to Alangayam, on 19. 1989. The second respondent rejected the same as one not in consonance with public interest, by order dated 12. 1991. In his order he stated that there was no representation from the public or any quarters that additional services had to be provided on the route in question and there were already adequate number of buses owned by the private operators and State Transport Undertakings on the route and the introduction of any additional, but facility would lead to unhealthy competition endangering public safety it was also observed by him that the sector of the route in question, from Vellore Bus Stand to Officer’s Line, of a length of 0.2 km. overlapped the approved scheme route Vellore to Kadapakkam, published in G.O.Ms.No.2290, some dated 29. 1974 in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.43(J), dated 11. 1974, by the State Transport undertakings. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court of India in P.R.C. v. Egappan, C.A.No.1758 of 1986 dated 22. 1987, and observed that no permit or variation could be granted to persons other than the State transport undertakings on a route or part thereof covered by approved scheme. He also referred to the applicant’s history sheet during his tenure as a bus operator and observed that punishments for offences of non-payment of tax and overload of passengers had been imposed on the applicant and there was no reason to show any special consideration just because their application seeking renewal of their existing permit on the route Katpadi-Thorapadi and subsequent applications for grant of permit were rejected by the Regional Transport Authority, which was only a reflection of the applicant’s past performance and lack of merits.

2. Aggrieved by the order, the first respondent preferred an appeal to the third respondent under Sec.89 of the Motor Vehilces Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). By order dated 112. 1991. the third respondent allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the second respondent and directed the latter to issue a permit to the applicant curtailing the portion of 0.2 km. which overlapped the approved scheme at one end. It was also clarififed by the third respondent that a permit shall be issued to the applicant from the officer’s Line, Vellore to Alangayam and the bus of the applicant shall not enter the Vellore Bus Stand on any account. The third respondent held that the second respondent was in error in taking in to account the history sheet and some lapses committed by the first respondent 15 years previously and in observing that grant of permit would lead to unhealthy competition endangering public safety. It was also held by the third respondent that the overlapping portion of 0.2 km. was very negligible and the second respondent could well have curtailed and granted the permit in respect of the remaining portion. He observed that adding one more but in the route will not create any competition, much less unhealthy competition.

3. The petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the second respondent or the third respondent. He has filed this writ petition on the ground that the third respondent had acted in excess of jurisdiction and the order passed by the third respondent suffers from errors of law and material irregularity. It is prayed in the writ petition that the order of the third respondent granting permit to the first respondent shall be quashed.

4. The first contention put forward by learned counsel for the petitiner is that the appeal filed by the first respondent before the third respondent against the order of the second respondent was not ma