JUDGMENT 1. - The controversy in these five writ petitions is a short one and as the same order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, (briefly hereinafter referred to as 'the STAT') dated January 1, 1975 is assailed in all these writ petitions, it shall be proper to dispose them of by a common order. 2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions were existing operators of Bikaner-Dungarharh-Sardarshahar route and were plying their vehicles on the sand route on the basis of non-temporary stage carriage permits granted to them by the concerned. Transport authority. On account of the coming into force of the nationalisation schemes relating to some routs in the aria, the aforesaid route was cur(sic) from Bikaner to Dungargarh with the result that the petitioners placed there vehicles only on the route from Dungargarh to Sardarshahar, which is a distance of 45 miles. Another route from Bikaner to Rawatsar via Dungargarh and Sardarshahar was also likewise curtailed, on account of the nationalisation schemes, from Bikaner to Dungargarh and from Sardarshahar to Rawatsar and operators of the said route were also left to ply their vehicles on the remaining notion of their route from Dungargarh to Sardarsahar. Then there was another route from Bikaner to Sadulpur via Dungargarh, Sardarshahar and Taranagar & on account of the curtailment of that route from Bikaner to Dungargarh and Taranagar to Saduipur, the operators of that route continued to ply their vehicles from Duogargnn to Taranagar via Sardarshahar. On account or the curtailment of Bikaner Dungargarh-Sardarshahar route, as mentioned above, the petitioners applied for the extension of the remaining route of their permits, namely Sardarshahar Dungargarh upto Bidasar. The distance between Dungargarh and Bidasar is 30 miles and Dungargarh-Bidasar formerly existed as a separate route, on which two vehicles were performing one route trip every day Respondent No. 3 Dhoodaram was the existing operator of Dungargarh Bidasar route. The applied on of the petitioners for extension of the curtailed route of their permits upto Bidasar were published by the Regional Transport Authority Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the RTA) under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as if they were applicants for the grant of new permits on Sardarshahar-Dungargarh Bidasar route, inviting objections in respect thereof. These applications for extension came up for consideration before the RTA on May 3, 1974. These applications for extension came up for consideration before the RTA on May 3, 1974. The respondent No 3 appeared at the aforesaid hearing and objected to the grant of extension of the route of the permits of the petitioners & other operators of Sardarshahar. Dungargarh route. After hearing the operators concerned, including the objection, the RTA thought it proper that Sardarshahar-Dungargarh, Dungargarh Bidasar and Dungargarh-Sardarshahar Taranagar routes he amalgamated and an amalgamated Bidasar-Dungargarh-Sardarshahar Taranagar route be created instead of the aforesaid three small routes. The RTA also decided as to the number of services which in its view should be performed every day on various sections of the amalgamated route which included the performance of one return service between Dungargarh and Bidasar daily. The RTA also considered it proper to invite objections in respect of the proposed amalgamation of the three existing routes into one and also in respect of the plying of specified services on different sections of the amalgamated route. It therefore directed that the proposal regarding amalgamation and the provision of specified services of various portions of the amalgamated route be published in the Rajasthan Gazette under Section 57(3) of the Act. A notification, as directed by the RTA was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated June 27, 1974 and the respondent No 3 was one of the objectors. The matter came up for beaming before the RTA on October a, 1974 and after bearing the objections, the RTA approved the proposal regarding the amalgamation of the three routes, namely Sardarshahar-Dungargarh-Dungargarh Bidasar & Dungargarh Sardarshaha-Taranagar. The RTA also approved the plying of specified services on different-portions of the amalgamated route, including plying of two return services daily on Dungargarh Bidasar route. 3. Respondent No. 3 preferred a revision petition against the aforesaid resolution of the RTA dated October 5, 1974 before the STAT. In this revision petition only the RTA was shown as an opposite party and the petitioner on whose applications for extension the RTA had decided to amalgamate the their routes were not mace parties to the said revision petition. Respondent No. 3 preferred a revision petition against the aforesaid resolution of the RTA dated October 5, 1974 before the STAT. In this revision petition only the RTA was shown as an opposite party and the petitioner on whose applications for extension the RTA had decided to amalgamate the their routes were not mace parties to the said revision petition. Some of the petitioners, namely Smt. Brahma Devi, Rekharam, Badhri Narayan and Girdhari Lal along with some other operators submitted application before the S.T.A.T. that they were vitally interested in the matter and that they should be heard by the S.T.A.T. The petitioner Nihal Chand was present before the R.T.A when it passed its resolution dated Octobers, 1974, but could not appear before the S.T.A.T., as no information regarding the revision petition filed by Dhooda Ram respondent No. 3 was furnished to him. The STAT, instead of deciding the revision petition of respondent No. 3 on merits held that in the changed circumstances resulting from the publication of a draft scheme of nationalisation relating to Sardarshahar Dungargarh route, the order of amalgamation and extension of the three routes in question was impracticable and could not be implemented. Taking this view the S.T.A.T. accepted the revision petition filed before it by the respondent No. 3 and set aside the resolution of the R.T A dated October 5, 1974 The present writ petitions have been submitted against the aforesaid order of the S.T.A.T. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners raised several contentions, but I will deal with only two of them, as they would be sufficient to dispose of these writ petitions. Learned Counsel for the petitioners raised several contentions, but I will deal with only two of them, as they would be sufficient to dispose of these writ petitions. One of the submissions made by the learned Counsel was that the petitioners were necessary parties to the revision petition filed by respondent No. 3 before the S.T.A.T. under Section 64 A of the Act and that the S.T.A.T. acted illegally in setting aside the resolution of the RTA, without directing the respondent No. 3 to make the petitioners parties to the said revision petition It has been particularly pointed out that Nihal Chand petitioner, who appeared before the R.T.A. and was heard by it while passing the resolution dated October 5, 1974, was not given an opportunity of hearing by the S.T.A.T. and the resolution of the R.T.A. passed in his favour could not have been set aside by the S.T.A.T. without giving reason-able opportunity of hearing to Nihal Chand, Section 64 A of the Act runs as under:- "Section 64A Revision - The State Transport Appellate Tribunal may, either on its own motion or on an application made to it, call for the record of any case in which an order has been made by a State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority and in which no appeal lies, and if it appears to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal that the order made by the State Transport Authority, Regional Transport Authority is improper or illegal the State Transport Appellate Tribunal may pass such order in relation to the case as it deems fit and every such order shall be final: Provided that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal shall not entertain any application from a person aggrieved by no order of a State Transport Authority of Regional Transport Authority, unless the application is made within thirty days from the date of the order: Provided further that 'he State Transport Appellate Tribunal shall not pass an order under this section prejudicial to any person without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard." 5. The second proviso to this section requires the S.T.A.T. to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to any person to whose prejudice an order is passed by that Tribunal under Section 64 A of the Act. The second proviso to this section requires the S.T.A.T. to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to any person to whose prejudice an order is passed by that Tribunal under Section 64 A of the Act. Nihal Chand petitioner is an existing operator of Dungargarh Sirdarshahar route & he also applied for extension of the route of his permit from Dungargarh to Bidasar along with other operators of his route and on a consideration if his application amongst others, the R.T.A., made a proposal for amalgamation of the three smaller routes The order of amalgamation, therefore, ensured in favour of Nihal Chand petitioner as well and if the S.T.A.T. desired to set aside that cider, then in accordance with the second proviso to Section 64 A of the Act it was incumbent upon the S T.A.T. to afford a reasonable opportunity of bearing to Nihal Chand petitioner. 6. Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 has not been able to controvert this contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners should have been given an opportunity of basing by the S.T.A.T. but his submission is that the petitioners Smt. Brahma Devi, Badri Narayan, Rekha Ram and Girdhari Lal themselves appeared before the S.T.A.T. and they were given a hearing by that Tribunal before the order dated January 1, 1975 was passed by it & that in this manner the requirement of the second previse to Section 64 A of the Act was complied with. It may be true in respect of the petitioner Smt. Brahma Devi; Badri Narayan, Rekha Ram and Girdhari Lal that they appeared before the S T A.T of their own accord and were heard in the matter, but so far as Nihal Chand petitioner is concerned, there can be no two opinions that he was also a persons who was entitled to a hearing by the STAT, before the resolution of the R.T.A. dated 5-10-1974 was set aside by the Tribunal. Nihalchand was neither, made a party to the revision petition by the respondent No. 3 before the S.T.A.T nor; he was present before that Tribunal and admittedly notice was issued to him by the S.T.A.T. in respect of the heating of the revision petition filed before it by respondent No. 3 In this view of the matter, the order passed by the S.T.A.T in the present case not only violates the principles of natural justice but it also concaveness the express provisions of the second proviso to Section 64-A of the Act, inasmuch as the petitioners Nihal Chand was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the S.T.A.T. 7. The second submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that only a draft scheme of nationalisation under Section 68-C of the Act relating to Sardarshahar-Dungargarh route has been published so tar and the publication of the aforesaid draft scheme could not render the decision of the R.T.A. dated October 5, 1974 ineffective in respect of the amalgamation of the three existing routes. It is not in dispute that the resolution of the R.T.A dated October 5, 1974 was passed even before the draft scheme of nationalisation relating to Sardarshabar Dungargarh route was published. So far as the amalgamation of the three smaller routes and the creation of the amalgamated route is concerned, the same was complete as soon as the R.T.A. passed its resolution on October 5, 1974. By the same resolution the R.T.A. also fixed the number of services which were to be performed on the different portions of the amalgamated route. Therefore, there is no basis for the STAT to hold that the amalgamation and execution of the concerned routes has become impracticable and cannot be implemented in accordance with law. The amalgamation having already been effected before the publication of the draft scheme of nationalisation relating to Sardarshahar Dungargarh route, it. cannot be held that the implementation of the amalgamation is yet to take place Mr. The amalgamation having already been effected before the publication of the draft scheme of nationalisation relating to Sardarshahar Dungargarh route, it. cannot be held that the implementation of the amalgamation is yet to take place Mr. Mehta argued that the resolution of the RTA dated October 5, 1974 was a general resolution regarding the amalgamation of the three existing routes and that the operators of the concerned routes have yet to submit applications for grant of permits on the amalgamated route or for grant of extension of their existing permits in respect of the portions of the amalgamated route not included so far in their permits and in the absence of such applications, endorsements in respect of extention could not have been made in the permits of the concerted operators by the R.T.A, However, this aspect of the matter does not appear to have been raised before or decided by the STAT. and it would not be proper for me to empress any opinion on this aspect at this stage, as in my opinion, the matter will have to go back to the S.T.A.T. for a fresh decision thereof. The S.T.A.T. his nor at all expressed any opinion of the merits of the question as to whether the order of amalgamation passed by the R.T.A. was proper to the circumstances of the case or not. Moreover, the S.T.A.T. has also to hear the concerned affected operators, before passing an order adverse to their interests in accordance with the second proviso to Section 64 A of the Act. 8. In the result ail these writ petitions are allowed. The order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan dated January 1, 1975 is set aside and the matter is sent back to the S.T.A.T. with the direction that it should decide the matter in the light of the observations made above, after hearing such of the parties it may consider necessary in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own costs. *******