ORDER B.D. Agarwal, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against an order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P., dated Oct. 9, 1984. 2. On Oct. 13, 1950, a route for stage carriage permit described as 'Shamli Kairana Kandhla Budhana' (hereinafter referred to as the 'shorter route') was classified as 'B Class Route' and the strength of the permit was fixed at two. In its meeting held on Aug. 29 to 31 and Sept. 1, 1968, the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, resolved to extend the route up to Muzaffar Nagar. The route thus extended is described as 'Shamli Kairana Kandhla Budhana Muzaffarnagar'. The respondent No. 3 (Mahendra Kumar Tayal) holds a permanent permit to ply stage carriage on the Muzaffarnagar Budhana Kandhla route. On Sept. 26, 1968, he made an application for the grant of a permit for stage carriage on the shorter route. The application of the respondent remained pending while permit was granted to one Shriniwas Gupta by order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated June 4, 1973. The respondent filed Writ Petition No. 617 of 1978 in this Court for issue of a writ of mandamus directing consideration of the application put in by him earlier. The petition was allowed and the Regional Transport Authority was directed to consider and decide upon the application within April 18, 1978. Laxman Singh, the petitioner, represented on July 26, 1978, before the Regional Transport Authority against the grant of permit to the respondent on the said application. The Regional Transport Authority rejected the application by order dated Aug. 31, 1978, taking the view that from the extension made to the route in Aug./Sept. 1968, and the revision in the strength it was manifest that the identity of the shorter route was lost and this had merged into the extended route. Against this order the respondent preferred appeal No. 850 of 1978 before the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal, as appears from its order dated Feb. 19, 1980, was of opinion that the Regional Transport Authority had to decide whether the shorter route stood abolished. It was observed that in case the finding is that the shorter route continued to exist, the application of the respondent would be maintainable and he might be granted a permit. 3. The Tribunal, as appears from its order dated Feb. 19, 1980, was of opinion that the Regional Transport Authority had to decide whether the shorter route stood abolished. It was observed that in case the finding is that the shorter route continued to exist, the application of the respondent would be maintainable and he might be granted a permit. The order made by the Regional Transport Authority dated August 31, 1978, was accordingly set aside and the case remanded for consideration and decision afresh. Laxman Singh, the petitioner, who had filed his representation mentioned above on July 26, 1978, had applied to the Tribunal for impleadment as a party. The Tribunal expressed the view that it was not necessary to implead him as a respondent but the purpose may be secured by giving him hearing as desired in the alternative. The order made by the Tribunal to this effect is dated June 15, 1979. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, whereby the case was remanded, the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 2874 of 1980 in this Court. It was decided by a learned single Judge on Aug 19, 1982. To this writ petition the petitioner before us was arrayed as the opposite party No. 3. Contention advanced in support of this writ petition was that the remand directed by Tribunal was unwarranted since there was material existing on the record already upon the consideration of which the point at issue could be decided on merit. This proposition was not disputed by counsel appearing for Laxman Singh. The writ petition was allowed on August 19,1982. The order of the Tribunal dated Feb. 19, 1980, was quashed. The Tribunal was directed to decide the appeal in the light of the material on record and to dispose of the matter itself according to law. 5. The Tribunal gave its decision on Dec. 2, 1983. It affirmed that until the shorter route was abolished by the Regional Transport Authority by a resolution, it shall be deemed to be in existence and vacancy arising in the sanctioned strength for permits and the shorter route would be capable of being filled in accordingly. 5. The Tribunal gave its decision on Dec. 2, 1983. It affirmed that until the shorter route was abolished by the Regional Transport Authority by a resolution, it shall be deemed to be in existence and vacancy arising in the sanctioned strength for permits and the shorter route would be capable of being filled in accordingly. The case was remanded by the Tribunal this time again to the Regional Transport Authority with the direction that so long as the Regional Transport Authority by resolution did not abolish the shorter route, it must treat a vacancy still existing on that route and for that purpose fill in the same by inviting applications and treating the respondent also as an applicant besides others. Laxman Singh was not given notice before the Tribunal, which recorded its decision on Dec. 2, 1983. 6. Against the order dated Dec. 2, 1983, the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 2178 of 1984 in this Court, which was allowed by a learned single Judge on Aug. 6, 1984, on ground that in view of the directions made by this Court on August 19, 1982, the Tribunal could not have remanded the matter again to the Regional Transport Authority and the question had to be decided by the Tribunal itself on the material existing on the record. The Tribunal was directed, therefore, to dispose of the matter on merits. 7. This was followed by the impugned order passed on Oct. 9, 1984, by the Tribunal. After narrating the sequence of events, considering the case the Tribunal therein observes : "Now, since the question of existence of the route Shamli-Kairana-Kandhla-Budhana and a vacancy thereon has been answered in affirmative; the only question to be determined by the Tribunal is whether the present appellant is or is not a fit person to be granted a regular stage carriage permit." 8. The Tribunal concluded thereafter that the respondent is a fit person for the grant of permit on the shorter route and the Appeal No. 850 of 1978 was accordingly allowed granting a permit for a period of three years to the respondent on the said route. Laxman Singh has filed this petition aggrieved against the grant of this permit to the respondent No. 3. 9. Sri R. A. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the impugned order made by the Tribunal dated Oct. Laxman Singh has filed this petition aggrieved against the grant of this permit to the respondent No. 3. 9. Sri R. A. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the impugned order made by the Tribunal dated Oct. 9, 1984, is vitiated since there was no opportunity of hearing accorded to the petitioner. The petitioner had, as earlier stated, filed a representation on July 26, 1978, against the grant of permit to the respondent on the shorter route. The contention raised by him was that since there was no shorter route in existence, the question of granting any permit thereon did not arise. This objection was taken into account by the Regional Transport Authority in passing the order dated Aug. 31, 1978, whereby the respondent's application for grant of permit was rejected (Annexure-7 to the rejoinder-affidavit). The Appeal No. 850 of 1978 filed by the respondent was directed against this order. The petitioner had applied before the Tribunal at that stage also for being impleaded as a party. The Tribunal did not formally array him as a party, but nonetheless directed on June 15, 1979, that he shall be allowed to be heard (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). The order by the Tribunal dated Feb. 19, 1980, was thus made after giving hearing to the petitioner in the matter. In Writ Petition No. 2874 of 1980 filed against this order by the respondent, the petitioner was arrayed as opposite-party No. 3. This Court set aside the Tribunal's direction given on Feb. 19, 1980, and directed the Tribunal to decide the matter itself on the material placed on the record. Up to this stage thus the petitioner had been represented in the proceeding. In face thereof it was not right for the Tribunal to have proceeded to decide the matter on Dec. 2, 1983. without notice or opportunity given to the petitioner. The petitioner is justified moreover in contending that in the Writ Petition No. 2178 of 1984 filed by the respondent against the Tribunal's order dated Dec. 2, 1983, he ought to have been arrayed as a party and that the order dated Aug. 6, 1984, is not binding upon him since he was not heard. The same' is true of the impugned order dated October 9, 1984, which was made behind the petitioner's back without opportunity of hearing accorded. 2, 1983, he ought to have been arrayed as a party and that the order dated Aug. 6, 1984, is not binding upon him since he was not heard. The same' is true of the impugned order dated October 9, 1984, which was made behind the petitioner's back without opportunity of hearing accorded. The petitioner was interested to put forward his contention on the crucial issue in the case, namely, whether the shorter route in respect of which permit is sought by the respondent stands abolished. 10. For the respondent No. 3 Sri L.P. Naithani. the learned counsel, urged that the petitioner did not hold permit on the shorter route, instead the permit then held by him was on the Shamli-Budhana via Phugana route and in view of sub-secs. (3) and (4) of S. 57 Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the petitioner cannot, as of right, claim hearing in the matter of adjudication of the application put in by the respondent. Reliance is placed on the decision in Pradeep Kumar v. State Transport Tribunal, AIR 1980 All 14 . In that case the petitioner had not filed any objection against the respondents application for the grant of permit as contemplated by S. 57(3) of the Act. It was held that an existing operator having failed to file representation as contemplated by S. 57(3), he was not entitled to oppose the grant of permit despite the proviso to R. 72, which lays down that an appellant shall join all such persons who are likely to be affected by the relief sought in the appeal. The case in the present stands on a different footing. Not only the petitioner had filed his representation, the same was entertained and the respondent's application was rejected initially on Aug. 31. 1978, taking the petitioner's representation into account. The petitioner was given hearing also in the appeal arising against this order at that stage. He was arrayed as a party to the writ petition decided on Aug. 19, 1982. His interest in this behalf did not cease with the decision given by this Court in that writ petition. In the matter of adjudication by the Tribunal upon merits afresh into the dispute, the petitioner was vitally interested as before and it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to have given him an opportunity to be heard when the decision was given on Dec. 2, 1983 as also Oct. In the matter of adjudication by the Tribunal upon merits afresh into the dispute, the petitioner was vitally interested as before and it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to have given him an opportunity to be heard when the decision was given on Dec. 2, 1983 as also Oct. 9, 1984. Sri Sharma has referred in this connection to an unreported decision of this Court in Special Appeal No. 265 of 1966, Sardar Bhan Singh v. The Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, dated March 7, 1968, wherein it was held that the mere fact that the objection was filed beyond time did not imply that the objector was not interested in the appeal filed by the other. The delay on his part in filing the objection could be made a ground not to entertain the same, but that does not speak against the interest in the matter. The party in whose favour the lower authority has made an order earlier is regarded a necessary party in proceedings seeking a writ of certiorari. A Tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial act cannot, it has been held, decide against the right of a party without giving him a hearing or an opportunity to represent his case in the manner known to law. The parties, whose rights are directly affected, are necessary parties to the writ petition to quash the order made by a Tribunal vide Udit Narain Singh v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, AIR 1963 SC 786 . The petitioner is an existing operator of stage carriage on the Muzaffarnagar-Budhana Kandhla Issupurteel and allied route. Taking into consideration the course, which the dispute in the present has taken, there can be no denial, in my view, that the petitioner should have been regarded a necessary party and an opportunity ought to have been provided to him. The Tribunal's order dated Oct. 9, 1984, is vitiated on this ground itself. 11. The other contention of Sri Sharma is that there is no application of mind by the Tribunal on the basis of the material existing on the record to the issue whether the shorter route has been abolished or it continues to exist. The law is settled that a decision to extend the shorter route to a longer distance will not automatically merge the shorter route in the longer route. The law is settled that a decision to extend the shorter route to a longer distance will not automatically merge the shorter route in the longer route. For that purpose it is necessary for the Regional Transport Authority to take an independent decision under the Motor Vehicles Act vide Rattanlal Gupta v. Suraj Bhan, AIR 1974 SC 391 . In that case the Regional Transport Authority had fixed the number of permits for the shorter route on 23-3-59 at 25. As 17 permits had already been granted. the authority invited application for 8 vacancies. The route had been extended under a resolution passed by the authority but at no time the authority had taken a decision to abolish the shorter route. This was assailed and the Supreme Court laid down that in the circumstances there remained eight vacancies on the shorter route for which the Regional Transport Authority had invited applications. It is not correct on the part of the respondent to submit that the issue had been decided by the Tribunal in its order dated February 19, 1980. As is clear from the following extract from this order, the Tribunal had left this over to be gone into and decided by the Regional Transport Authority : "The decision of this case depends on the sole question whether the shorter route on which the permit is being claimed still exists and has a vacancy. Since this question is yet to be considered and decided finally by the R.T.A. as mentioned above. I think it would be proper to send back the application of the appellant to the R.T.A. for consideration and decision in the same meeting in which the question relating to abolition and de-recognition of the shorter route is fixed. In case the R.T.A. holds that the shorter route still continues to exist the application of the appellant for permit, obviously, would be maintainable and he may be granted a permit. In case the R.T.A. decides that the route already stands abolished or it resolves to abolish it now, it will pass orders and decide the application accordingly." 12. It is true that in Writ Petition No. 2874 of 1980 filed by the respondent against this order counsel for Laxman Singh did not dispute that the Tribunal could adjudicate on the issue itself on the necessary material available on the record instead of making a direction of remand. It is true that in Writ Petition No. 2874 of 1980 filed by the respondent against this order counsel for Laxman Singh did not dispute that the Tribunal could adjudicate on the issue itself on the necessary material available on the record instead of making a direction of remand. But then this does not assist the respondent; the fact remains that the order of the Tribunal dated Feb. 19, 1980, was set aside and the Tribunal was directed by this Court to decide the matter itself on merits. There was a lapse again on the Tribunal's part in this behalf inasmuch as the question was not adjudicated on merits either way in its order passed on Dec. 2, 1983. The Tribunal this time barely stated the law that until there had been a resolution by the Regional Transport Authority to abolish the shorter route it was to be considered as existing. As to whether the material placed on the record does or does not suggest that the shorter route had been done away with as contended for the petitioner is left undecided in this order of the Tribunal apart front the fact as mentioned above the petitioner was not provided an opportunity of hearing in making this order. Further this order itself stands set aside on account of the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2178 of 1984 dated Aug 6, 1984. The Tribunal was placed back to the position it was in when the earlier decision of this Court was given on Aug. 19, 1982, that is to say, the Tribunal had to decide itself on the existing material the maintainability of the respondent's application for grant of permit on the shorter route on adjudicating if the shorter route is available still for grant of a permit. Instead of making a probe into this question on merit in the light of the evidence available on the record the Tribunal has on Oct. 9, 1984, proceeded on assumption that this stands answered already in the affirmative. This approach by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in my opinion. The question herein is not of exercise of discretion by the Tribunal or the Regional Transport Authority into which this Court would be reluctant to interfere as would appear also from Abdul Rehman v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1978 SC 949 : (1978 All LJ 418 cited for the respondent. The question herein is not of exercise of discretion by the Tribunal or the Regional Transport Authority into which this Court would be reluctant to interfere as would appear also from Abdul Rehman v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1978 SC 949 : (1978 All LJ 418 cited for the respondent. The issue on the other hand comes to the jurisdiction since it would not be open to Regional Transport Authority or the Tribunal for that matter to grant a permit in case no such route is available any longer or the shorter route stands abolished on account of a decision of the Regional Transport Authority expressly or by necessary implication made in this behalf. 13. Sri Sharma in this connection refers to resolution of the Regional Transport Authority dated July 21, 1973, and the subsequent resolution of Sept. 5, 1973 (vide Annexures 2 and 3 to the counter-affidavit). It is argued that the shorter route has been amalgamated by way of variation made under sub-s. (8) of S. 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Sri Naithani has, however, pointed not without significance that in the enumeration of routes amalgamated by the resolution dated 21-7-83 there is no mention of the shorter route in question. The routes referred to therein are as follows : (a) Muzaffarnagar-Budhana Kandhle Issupurteel (b) Shamli-Budhana via (i) Pughana (ii) Budhana-Shahpur-Muzaffarnagar (iii) Baraut via Bamnauli (c) Shamli-Muzaffarnagar via Kairana- Kandhla (d) (i) Baraut to Budhana via Bamnauli (ii) Budhana to Shamli via Pughana. 14. It was also argued then for the petitioner that on Sept. 2, 1983, the Regional Transport Authority resolved to create an area covered under Muzaffarnagar-Budhana- Kandhla-Issupurteel and allied route and hence the shorter route ceased to have a distinct identity. For this purpose reference has been made to the resolution dated Sept. 2, 1983 and the resolution dated Sept. 21, 1983, whereby the strength was fixed in regard to this area (vide annexures 8/9 to the writ petition). This has been disputed on the respondent's side. It has been submitted that the petitioner, along with certain other persons, has himself filed revision No. 85 of 1983 before the Tribunal on Oct. 1, 1983, challenging the alleged creation of the area and claiming that the same was not done in accordance with law. This has been disputed on the respondent's side. It has been submitted that the petitioner, along with certain other persons, has himself filed revision No. 85 of 1983 before the Tribunal on Oct. 1, 1983, challenging the alleged creation of the area and claiming that the same was not done in accordance with law. Be that as it may, I am not called upon to pronounce at this stage on the validity of this assertion. Suffice it may to say that it remains up to the Tribunal to take the relevant material, including these resolutions, into consideration and decide whether the shorter route retains its independent existence so that the respondent may lay claim to a permit for stage carriage thereon. 15. For the reasons set out in the above, the petition succeeds and is allowed accordingly. The order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated Oct. 9, 1984 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to decide afresh and expeditiously the Appeal No. 850 of 1978 on merits according to law and in the light of the observations contained in this judgment after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be entitled to recover his costs.