Judgment :- Malimath, CJ. The Regional Transport Authority granted a stage carriage permit to the appellant for a slightly different route than the one in respect of which he had applied for the stage carriage permit. The first respondent is a stage carriage operator of a portion of the route applied for by the appellant viz, Ponkunnam„ Paika, Palai. He appears to have submitted before the Regional Transport Authority that the appellant cannot be granted a Fast Passenger Stage Carriage Permit, on the ground that such permit can be granted only in respect of routes of a particular distance and that too in favour of existing fleet operators. Ultimately, the Regional Transport Authority granted a permit, excluding the sector on which the first respondent operates and granting a permit in respect of slightly deviated route-Ponkunnam (Via) Elampilly, Pallickathodu, Palai, and so on. As regards the timings, the parties were required to be heard. 2. The appellant challenged the decision of the Regional Transport Authority before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and granted the application for the grant of the permit in respect of the route as prayed for by him, reserving discretion to the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority to allot suitable timings, after taking into consideration the interests of the existing operators. It is the said decision that was challenged by the first respondent in O.P.No.8127 of 1990. The learned single judge has allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and remitted the case to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, principally on the ground that the first respondent should have been impleaded as a party and that he should have been heard before a decision was taken on merits regarding grant of the permit. It is the said decision that is challenged in this appeal. 3. When the matter came up for admission, as we thought that the matter lies in a very narrow-compass, we issued notice regarding admission so that the matter could be disposed of expeditiously. Accordingly, the parties were served and we heard counsel appearing for them. 4. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no right as such for objecting to the grant of stage carriage permit has been granted. Accordingly, the parties were served and we heard counsel appearing for them. 4. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no right as such for objecting to the grant of stage carriage permit has been granted. It is in this background that the appellant's counsel contends, that the question of impleading the first respondent in the appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal does not arise. Hence, it is submitted, that the learned single judge was not justified in interfering with the decision of the Tribunal, solely on the ground that the first respondent was not impleaded as a party in the appeal. What is a more fundamental error committed by the Regional Transport Authority is in granting the permit to the appellant varying the route in respect of which he had applied for the grant of stage carriage permit. The route was so varied as to ensure that the service of the appellant does not, in anyway, overlap the sector on which the first respondent has been operating, as noted earlier. It has to be noticed that sub-section (1) of S.72 says, that "Subject to the provisions of S.71,a Regional Transport Authority may, on an application made to it under S.70, grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modifications as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit." The power of granting permit in modification of the request made in the application is further restricted by a proviso to the said sub-section, which says, "Provided that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any route or area not specified in the application." Hence, it is clear that the Regional Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to grant permit to the appellant varying the route in respect of which he had made the application. The decision of the Regional Transport Authority was, therefore, clearly opposed to the statutory provision. The question of hearing the first respondent in the situation like this would not arise under any circumstances. The only grievance he may make is about the timings and that has to be taken care of by the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority to assign timings after holding a timing conference for that purpose, wherein all parties will have a right to place their respective cases before the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority before finally assigning timings. We have, therefore, no hesitation in taking the view that interference with the decision of the Tribunal was not justified, for the reasons above stated. Hence this appeal is allowed, the judgment of the learned single judge is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.