Judgment :- 1. In these writ petitions the common question is whether the Regional Transport Authority should be impleaded as a party to an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. In Writ Petition Nos. 13059 and 9593 of 1992, the facts are slightly different with regard to the circumstance that the appeals before the Tribunal, in those cases, were filed in 1975. The Tribunal has uniformly taken the view that the Regional Transport Authority, against whose order the appeal has been filed, is a necessary party and he should be impleaded as a party to the appeal. The Tribunal passed conditional orders in the appeals granting certain time to the appellants to implead the Regional Transport Authority and on failure to do so, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeals on the ground of non-compliance of the conditional orders. Hence the appellants before the Tribunal are aggrieved by the said orders and have preferred these writ petitions. 2. The basis of the order of the Tribunal is Rule 6(3) of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rules 1989. The Rule 6(3) reads as follows: “In every appeal or revision petition in addition, the successful parties before the appropriate authority, namely the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority or the Secretary of either Authority, as the case may be, shall be made respondent. A copy of the memorandum of appeal or revision petition shall also be furnished to the respondents by registered post and the postal receipt shall be attached to the memorandum of appeal or revision petition.” 3. Obviously, the Tribunal has read the rule as if the Rule required the impleading of the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority or the Secretary of either Authority as parties in addition to the successful parties. The preposition ‘to’ is not found in the Rule. As it stands the Rule will only mean that in addition to what is stated earlier in Rule 6 namely in sub-rules 1 and 2, the requirement of Rule 3 should also be complied with by the appellants. Rule 6(1) provides for presentation of the appeal by the party in person or by sending registered post with acknowledgement due or by the Pleader or Advocate or his Registered Clerk in person. Rule 6(1) provides for presentation of the appeal by the party in person or by sending registered post with acknowledgement due or by the Pleader or Advocate or his Registered Clerk in person. Sub-rule (2) provides that whenever an appeal or revision is presented by the Pleader or an Advocate or a registered Clerk, it shall be accompanied by Vakalatnama in the form in use in the High Court, Madras, for the Appellate Side bearing a certain court fee of Rs. 2/- In addition to complying with sub-rules (1) and (2), the appellant shall implead the successful parties before the appropriate Authority as respondents in the appeal. The Rule does not mean that the Transport Authority should be impleaded in addition to the successful parties. 4. However, the view taken by the Tribunal is sought to be supported by the learned Government Advocate as well as the counsel for contesting respondents, in some of the matters by referring to some of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 5. S. 89 of the Act provides for appeals filed by any person aggrieved by various orders set out therein. Under the Section, the person aggrieved may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal constituted under sub-S. (2), who shall after giving such person and the original authority an opportunity of being heard, give a decision thereon which shall be final. It is contended that the Section contemplates an opportunity being given to the original authority of being heard and therefore the original authority is a necessary party to the appeal and it should be shown as respondent. I do not agree. For the purpose of giving an opportunity of being heard, it is not necessary that the original authority should be made a respondent in the appeal. My reasoning is supported by the Rules to which I will make a reference immediately. 6. Rule 157 relates to appeals under S. 89. Rule 158 prescribes the form of appeal and revision. Under Rule 158, the appeal or revision shall be in the form of a memorandum in duplicate setting forth the grounds of objection to the order which is the subject matter or the appeal or the application and shall be accompanied by the original or a certified copy of the order and a treasury receipt for the fee prescribed. Under Rule 158, the appeal or revision shall be in the form of a memorandum in duplicate setting forth the grounds of objection to the order which is the subject matter or the appeal or the application and shall be accompanied by the original or a certified copy of the order and a treasury receipt for the fee prescribed. The first proviso is to the effect that the appeal or application shall not be deemed to have been presented properly unless the respondents concerned are cited and unless a copy of the appeal or application is furnished simultaneously to the respondents so cited. Under the second proviso, an appeal or application signed and presented by more than one aggrieved person shall not be entertained. As per the Explanation, it would be sufficient compliance with the first proviso, if the appellant or applicant has sent the copies to the address of the respondents by registered post with acknowledgement due. 7. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rules defines a “departmental representative” for the purpose of the Rules. It defines a party under Rule 2(e) as “the appellant, the respondent the petitioner-objector or his authorised representative”. It does not refer to the original authority whose order is under challenge. Rule 7 provides for registration of appeals and revision petitions. Under the said Rule, the Secretary of the Tribunal shall endorse on the appeal or revision on presentation, t he date of the appeal or revision and if it does not conform to the requirements of the Act or the Rules, he shall cause it to be returned by making an endorsement on the same and calling upon the appellant or the revision petitioner to rectify the defect or defects within seven days. Under sub-rule 2, if the defect is not rectified within the time allowed, the Secretary shall make a report to that effect to the presiding officer who may reject the appeal or the revision petition or fix a date for hearing after giving due notice of such hearing to the party in Form III and to the departmental representative if any. Sub-rule 3 provides that the Presiding Officer may, after hearing the party and the departmental representative pass orders directing the registration of appeal or revision petition or its rejection. Sub-rule 3 provides that the Presiding Officer may, after hearing the party and the departmental representative pass orders directing the registration of appeal or revision petition or its rejection. Thus Rule 7 provides that the departmental representative, who represents the Transport Authorities, is entitled to receive notice issued by the Tribunal on behalf of the State Transport Authorities and he shall be heard even at the stage of return of the appeal or revision petition or rejection thereof. In other words, even before the appeal or revision petition is registered and taken on file, the departmental representative gets an opportunity to be heard as to whether the appeal could be registered inspite of the defects pointed by the Tribunal and as to whether there are any defects as stated by the Secretary to the Tribunal. 8. Rule 12 of the Tribunal Rules prescribes a procedure to be followed after registration of appeal or revision petition. Under that Rule, the Tribunal shall fix a date for hearing and notice of the date fixed for hearing shall be issued to the parties concerned by registered post with acknowledgement due in Form III and a copy of the memorandum of appeal or revision petition shall also be furnished to the authority whose order is challenged and the record together with the remarks on the affidavit called for. Thus the Rule makes it clear that the authority, whose order is challenged, need not be a party to the appeal. If, as interpreted by the Tribunal under Rule 6(3), the authority whose order is challenged, is a necessary party to the appeal, then Rule 12 need not provide specifically for sending a copy of memorandum of appeal or revision petition to the said authority because Rule 6(3) itself provides that notice of memorandum of appeal or revision petition shall be furnished to the respondents by registered post and the postal receipt shall be attached to the memorandum of appeal or revision petition. The Regional Transport Authority says that they will be exempted by Rule 6(3) and there is no necessity at all for the Rule. Rule 12 itself shows that the authority, whose order is challenged, is different from the notice to the appeal or revision petition, not covered by the expressions ‘respondents’ in Rule 6(3) to whom memorandum of appeal or revision petition should be furnished by registered post. 9. Rule 12 itself shows that the authority, whose order is challenged, is different from the notice to the appeal or revision petition, not covered by the expressions ‘respondents’ in Rule 6(3) to whom memorandum of appeal or revision petition should be furnished by registered post. 9. Rule 24 which relates to service of notice is also relevant in this case. Under that Rule, the notice required to be issued under the Act or the Rules shall be sent to the parties by registered post with acknowledgement clue. That Rule is silent as to any notice being sent to the authority, whose order is challenged in the appeal or revision petition. If the authority is to be made a party respondent in the appeal or revision petition, then Rule 24 would have contained provision for service of notice to that authority. The absence of such provision shows that the authority concerned is not a necessary party to the appeal or revision petition. 10. Reliance is placed on Form III prescribed by the Rules. The Form provides for issue of notice of appeal to the party/parties. It does not contain any provision for issue of notice to the Regional Transport Authority or the State Authority. On the other hand, according to the said Form, a copy should be sent to the Regional Transport Officer The Form does not, in anyway, help the learned Government Advocate in supporting the order of the Tribunal. 11. Hence the view taken by the Tribunal that the authority, whose order is challenged in the appeal before the Tribunal, is a necessary party to the proceeding before it, is erroneous. There is no necessity for impleading the authority concerned as a party/respondent in the appeal. As Rules provide for issue of notice to the authority through the departmental representative, the original authority will have sufficient opportunity to be heard in the appeal. In fact, S. 89 also provides for an opportunity of being heard. Hence, without being made a respondent in the appeal the authority, whose order is challenged in the appeal, can be heard by the Tribunal. 12. In the Writ Petition Nos. 13059 and 9593 of 1992, appeals were filed before the Tribunal in 1975. It is stated that for the first time, by G.O.Ms. Hence, without being made a respondent in the appeal the authority, whose order is challenged in the appeal, can be heard by the Tribunal. 12. In the Writ Petition Nos. 13059 and 9593 of 1992, appeals were filed before the Tribunal in 1975. It is stated that for the first time, by G.O.Ms. No. 3365 Home (TR VII), 17th December 1977, the Rules were framed by the Government and as applicable to Tamil Nadu State Transport Appellate Tribunal. They were called Tamil Nadu State Transport Tribunal Rules 1977. Rule 6(3) thereof was the same as the present Rule 6(3). These rules came into force on February 1, 1978. Hence the Rules would not apply to the appeals which were filed earlier. When the appeals in those two cases were filed in 1975, there was no Rule requiring the impleading of the authority, whose order was challenged. Even if it is held that the interpretation of the Tribunal of Rule 6(3) is correct, in so far as W.P. No. 13059 and 9593 are concerned, the petitions were not filed to implead the Transport Authority as a party/respondent to their appeals. Hence the Tribunal is in error in dismissing their appeals on the ground of non-joinder of the original authority. 13. In any event, as I have taken the view that the Regional Transport Authority, whose order is challenged in the appeals, is not a necessary party to the appeals, the orders of the Tribunal passed in all these cases are quashed and the Tribunal is directed to restore the appeals to its file and dispose of them on merits. Accordingly the writ petitions are allowed and there will be no order as to costs.