Judgment :- The petitioner is one who had supported the application of the sixth respondent for the grant of an extension of the route, by filing representation. 2. The R.T.A. inspite of this representation of the petitioner rejected the aforesaid application of the sixth respondent originally. That order was challenged by the sixth respondent without impleading cither respondents 4 and 5 or even any of the objectors or even the petitioner who supported his application. The S.T.A.T. accepted the revision and consequently set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Thereafter the R.T.A. passed the order granting the variation sought for by the sixth respondent as is seen from Ext. P1 order. That order was under challenge before the S.T.A.T. as is seen from the revisions filed by respondents 4 and 5. These revisions were disposed of by a common judgment Ext. P4 which is under challenge in this O.P. 3. The main point urged by the petitioner is that Ext. P4 order being one passed without giving him an opportunity of being heard is liable to beset aside. According to him, he being one who has filed a representation supporting the grant, is a necessary party to the revision petitions. The non-impleadment of the petitioner as a party to the said proceedings has resulted in miscarriage of justice. He therefore submits that there may be a declaration that Ext. P4 order is non-est as the same is one passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. Whether there is any substance in this contention requires to be considered in the light of the provisions contained in The Kerala State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1988 for short The Rules, framed under The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Relevant Rules are RuIes 6 and 12. Clause (3) of rule 6, which alone is relevant here, provides that in every appeal or revision petition, besides the aggrieved party or parties, the concerned Transport Authority or Authorities and their Secretaries, as the case may be, shall be made respondent or respondents. This Clause clearly indicates that only those parties who had applied for the grant along with the appellant or the revision petitioner and the concerned transport authority or authorities and their Secretaries need be impleaded as respondents to maintain the appeal or the revision, as the case may be. This Clause clearly indicates that only those parties who had applied for the grant along with the appellant or the revision petitioner and the concerned transport authority or authorities and their Secretaries need be impleaded as respondents to maintain the appeal or the revision, as the case may be. In other words aggrieved party within the meaning of this Rule can at best be the party who had competed with the appellant 'or revision petitioner for the grant of the permit. They arc, to my mind, different from those parties who have the right to get themselves impleaded in such proceedings. A reference in this connection to rule 12 is relevant. It reads: "Any person who is concerned with an appeal or revision petition may at any stage before final hearing for such appeal or revision petition, move by a petition accompanied by an affidavit of such person, for being impleaded and heard as an additional respondent or counter petitioner in the appeal or revision petition". The person who has supported the grant or the one who has opposed the grant, can at best be said to be a person who is concerned with an appeal or the revision. He, under no circumstance, can be treated as an aggrieved party within the meaning of clause 3 of Rule 6. If that be the position the petitioner who was only a person who had filed a representation supporting the application of the sixth respondent for the grant of the permit is only a person who is concerned with the appeal or revision and therefore it is for him to get himself impleaded as a party to the said proceedings. 5. Under these circumstances I am of the view that the argument of the counsel that the order is ab initio void for the reason that it is one passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is liable to be rejected. The O.P. fails. Accordingly the same is dismissed.