The Appellate Board may cancel permits only if necessary to provide relief to appellants while adhering to principles of natural justice.

1. These rules arise out of applications under Art.226 of the Constitution and can be disposed of by one common judgment.

2. Rule No. 138 of 1959 arises out of an application by one Sri Khagendra Nath Das who was granted a permit by the Regional Transport Authority, Gauhati to ply his bus on the Narth - Gauhati - Sarthebari - Barpeta route in the year 1956. From time to time temporary permits were granted to the petitioner along with five others on the said route on the ground that the State Government was contemplating to nationalise the route. This renewal of the temporary permits continued after every four months till 1959 when it was given out by the State Government that they no longer intended to nationalise the route. It was decided that the number of the permits be increased from six to sixteen on this route.
The number was however reduced to twelve. In its meeting held from 30th July to 3rd August 1959 the Regional Transport Authority, Gauhati granted permits to the petitioner and his five associates who had been in the past getting temporary permits in respect of this route and six more permits were granted to various persons out of the new applicants. Various persons who were aggrieved by the order of the Regional Transport Authority rejecting their applications filed appeals before the Appellate Board. In the appeals filed, all the six new persons who were granted permits by the Regional Transport Authority although they had no temporary permits before, were impleaded as respondents. One Pran Krishna Das son of late Phophoram Das who has been impleaded as opposite party No. 6 in this petition, included the petitioner also as a respondent in his appeal. All these appeals were taken up together and were jointly heard by the Appellate Board on the 16th and 17th November 1959.
The Members of the Board have been impleaded as opposite parties Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 to this petition and the State of Assam has been made opposite party No. 1. The appeal filed on behalf of Pran Krishna Das was rejected as he was not considered preferable to the petitioner by the Appellate Board. The permit however granted to the petitioner was cancelled. The facts are not disputed.

3. The ground taken by the petitioner is that the appeal in which the petitioner was impleaded as respondent before the Appellate Board was dismissed, as such the permit granted to the petitioner could not be cancelled. In effect the argument of the petitioner is two - fold, - firstly that the Appellate Board has jurisdiction to cancel the permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority only if it is necessary for granting relief to the appellant. In the present case when the appeal of Pran Krishna Das was dismissed by the Appellate Board it cannot be said that it was necessary to give relief to the appellant to cancel the permit granted to the present petitioner. The order of the Appellate Board is therefore without jurisdiction. Secondly it was contended that if it be argued by the opposite parties that in order to give relief to the appellants in other connected appeals some of which have been allowed, it was necessary to cancel the permit granted to the petitioner, this could not be done by the Appellate Board without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the cancellation. The petitioner was only impleaded as respondent in the appeal filed by Pran Krishna Das.
The allegations made in the grounds of appeal of Pran Krishna Das were to the effect that he should have been preferred to the petitioner. The notice was issued to the petitioner only in connection with the appeal filed by Pran Krishna Das. In the other appeals as the petitioner i