M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THESE petitions coming up for orders on I. A I for vacating the interim stay, is taken up for final disposal by the following order after hearing the counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to these petitions briefly stated are as follows: the petitioners are operators of stage carriages on the route Huliyurdurga to Bangalore via Magadi. 3rd. respondent was also an operator from Jakken- hally Cross to Bangalore on a permit granted by the first respondent R. T. A. Mandya, in 1981-82. The original permit granted to the 3rd respondent did not provide a halt between Hulivurdurga and bangalore. It is necessary to state that the petitioners were operators who were given stage' carriage permits prior to the grant in favour of 3rd respondent. On account of some public representation the R. T. A. Mandya, published a Notification in the Karnataka gazettee dated 25,2. 1982 by which it was proposed to a lter the conditions of the permit issued to the 3rd responden. t on the route in question namely, Jakkenahally cross to Bangalore by providing a halt at Magadi. Further, the R. T. A. took up the matter on 10. 3. 82 and the condition of the permit, was altered under Section 48 (3) (xxi) providing a halt at magadi. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed appeals before the 2nd respondent the Karnataka state Transport appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, interalia contending that the mandatory requirement of notice of 30 days was not given to the affected operators. They also moved for interim stay of the grant. That application moving for stay of the grant of halt by altering the conditions of the permit was rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated 21. 5,1982. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 3 ) NORMALLY, this Court will not interfere under Art. 226 in any matter where challenge is made to the discretionary orders of the Tribunal as at interim arrangement. But, in the instant case, the main ground on which the attack is made was already the subject matter of decision of this Court in Gangadharaiah vs. Karnataka State transport Appellate Tribunal. But, in the instant case, the main ground on which the attack is made was already the subject matter of decision of this Court in Gangadharaiah vs. Karnataka State transport Appellate Tribunal. Bangalore (1) in which the Court clearly took the view that any alteration in the conditions of a permit under Section 48 (3) (xxi) can only be after notice to the affected existing stags carriage operators on the route in question and not otherwise. ( 4 ) THE respondents who were aggrieved there took up the matter in. appeals in Writ Appel Nos. 350, 251 and 356 of 1980. A Division Bench of this court while aggreeing with the learned Single. Judge in regard to the need to the issue of notice, also came to the conclusion that permitting a halt which was not in the original permit was a matter in regard to which the existing stage carriage operators of the sector on the route must be heard. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was clearly in error in ignoring the law laid down by the Court and refusing to grant the interim stay prayed for. Therefore, the order impugned suffers from patent illegality and error of law apparent on the face of the record and therefore calls for interference. ( 5 ) SRI A. A. Shetty learned counsel for the 3rd respondent however contended that the notice published in the gazette should be held to be sufficient and that the Motor Vehicles Act does not contemplate individual notices to each operators to be issued; and that the, petitioners not being objectors in spite of Gazette publication should not be permitted to prosecute the appeals as they had no locus standi to prosecute the appeals. ( 6 ) NO doubt, this Court in more than one case has held that persons who were not objectors before the original authority should not be permitted to prosecute an appeal. But the thrust of the argument advanced for the petitioners is that while the gazette publication, a true copy of which is at anner xure-A to the petition, may be construed as notice to the aggrieved operators, the mandatory requirement of 30 days notice contemplated under section 48 (3) (xxi) has not been complied with by the first respondent r. T. A. in as much as the Gazette was published on 25. 2. 2. 82 and within 16 days thereafter the matter was disposed of even before the appellants could file their objections. ( 7 ) THERE is force in the above contention advanced for the petitioners. Under Section 48 (3) (xxi) in regard to the period of notice is by employment of language in negative terms and is as follows: -"that the Regional Transport Authority may, after giving notice of not less than one month,- (a) vary the conditions of the permit; (b) the provision clearly states that not less than 30 days notice is to be given to the affected parties. Since it is obvious that the R. T. A. did not give this clear 30 days notice it was clearly in error and that was a factor which was very much in favour of the petitioners who are affected by the halt now granted to the 3rd respondent ,on the route in question. " ( 8 ) IN the result, the petitioners should succeed and the impugned order of the 2nd respondent Tribunal is liable to be quashed for passing the same without examining the question of law which governed the facts of the case. ( 9 ) IN the result, the impugned, order in quashed. However, the tribunal is directed to dispose of the appeals themselves on merits in the light of the observations made in regard to the scope and application of Section 48 (3) (xxi) and having regard to the decisions of this court which have, been referred to earlier in the course of this order. ( 10 ) SRI Panduranga Swamy learned government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 within two weeks from today. --- *** --- .