( 1. ) THE petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against the condition imposed in an order of the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur (respondent 2) dated 27-9-1958 to the effect that a grant to the petitioner of a stage carriage permit for the Jabalpur-Mandla via Berela-Niwas route (hereinafter called the route) would stand cancelled if the appeal filed by Messrs. Sheikh Rasool Motor Transport Company (respondent 3) is allowed by the State Transport Appellate Authority (Respondent 1 ). The petitioner has also challenged the validity of the order of the State Transport Appellate Authority dated 25-1-1960 whereby the aforesaid appeal was allowed.

( 2. ) THE facts of the case, which are not in dispute, are these. The respondent 3 had applied for and obtained a stage carriage permit for the route to be operated on timings to be fixed subsequently. It transpired that the timings so fixed conflicted with the timings of another permit for the route. On a representation made by the respondent 3, the timings were revised. Since the respondent 3 did not operate even in accordance with the revised timings, the respondent 2 passed on 28-3-1958 the following order : "the applicant is represented by Shri Sheikh Rasool. He has been directed to produce a stay order within 30 days failing which the timings given to him will be enforced and if he does not run his bus, the permit will be cancelled. Order communi-cated. "

( 3. ) SINCE the respondent 3 neither obtained a stay order nor operated the permit by running its buses in terms of the order dated 28-3-1958, a notice dated 1-5-1958 (Annexure II) was served on the respondent 3 directing it to start at once running its buses on the fixed timings and that, if it failed so to do, the question of cancellation of the permit under S, 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, would be taken up for consideration. The matter came up before the respondent 2 on 30-5-1958, when it was found that the respondent 3 started running its buses from 26-5-1958, that is nearly one month after the time limit originally fixed in the order dated 28-3-1958. The permit granted to the respondent 3 was cancelled because it had failed to comply with that order.

( 4. ) IN view of the vacancy caused by cancellation of the permit of the respondent 3, applications were made for regular stage carriage permits. One of the objectors was the respondent 3 who contended that, since it had filed an appeal against the order of cancellation, a new permit in place of the one which was cancelled should not be granted. In regard to this, the respondent 2 observed:

"an affidavit is filed by Sheikh Rasool Motor Transport Company Ltd. , stating that he has filed an appeal against the order of cancellation of his permit. The applicants for the permit concede that any order granting a permit to any of them will stand cancelled if Sheikh Rasool Motor Transport Co. s appeal succeeds. In these circumstances, there is no need to adjourn the case for decision cf Sheikh Rasools appeal".

Ultimately, on the condition mentioned in the opening paragraph of the order, a regular permit was granted to the petitioner which expressly agrees to that condition.

( 5. ) WHEN the appeal filed by the respondent 3 came up before the respondent 1 (State Transport Appellate Authority), the petitioner applied for being impleaded as a party to the appeal under Rule 73 (b) of the Motor Vehicles Rules on the ground that it had subsequently obtained a permit for the route and should be regarded as "any other person interested in the appeal". The respondent 1 rejected that application, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of cancellation of the permit granted to the respondent 3. Thereupon, by an order dated 14-3-1960, the new permit granted to the petitioner was cancelled though that order was not communicated before this petition was filed.

( 6. ) ONE of the two contentions in support of the petition is that the respondent 2, in