S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

In view of the hearing/disposal of the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition and the observations in this judgment, technically, though no relief could be granted in favour of the proposed-impleading respondents, we allow both the implead-petitions, i.e. in W.A.M.P.No.186 of 2007 in Writ Appeal No.2032 of 2002 and W.P.M.P.No.721 of 2008 in Writ Petition No.32985 of 2002, and implead K.Dhandapani as second respondent in the Writ Appeal and fourth respondent in the Writ Petition.

2. As common question of law is involved and as the contesting respondent(s) is common, both the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The appellant/writ petitioner, namely Union of India, represented by Union Territory of Pondicherry, represented by State Transport Authority, Pondicherry (hereinafter referred to as the State Transport Authority), vide Circular/notice dated 17. 1987, invited applications for the route Pondicherry-Tiruvannamalai, pursuant to the Notification issued under Section 57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (Old Act) (for short, the M.V. Act), dated 16. 1985. Applications including the application p