JUDGMENT This is a petition by M.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation, a Corporation established under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. Respondent No.2 in the case, Nasrullakha is a passenger bus operator. He had applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Indore for a stage carriage permit on Ohamnod-Dhar route. This application was published and objections were invited. Several objections were filed, one of them by the M.P.S.R.T.C. After hearing the parties and the objectors on 28.11.92 the R.T.A Indore rejected the application. The respondent No.2 filed an appeal against the order before the S.T.AT. Gwalior. The objectors and the parties who had appeared before the R.T.A. were not impleaded in the appeal. The S.T.AT. heard the appeal in absence of the objectors who had objected to the grant of the permit before the R.T.A and passed an order on 17.5.1993 granting the permit and fixing temporarily, the timings which could be objected to within four months before the R.T.A Indore. The permit was conditioned upon a use of vehicle which has been registered not earlier than 10 years and sitting capacity of which is minimum 45 seats and maximum 50 seats. Though several points have been raised on the merits of the case, reliance has also been placed on a decision of this Court in M.P. No. 730/93 decided on 21.4.1993 (Chenram Jain v. S.TA.T.), in which it has been laid down that principles of natural justice required that an appellate Authority hearing an appeal from an order of the R. T.A rejecting grant of permit had to hear all those who had objected before the R.T.A The decision in Chenram's case was folioed in M.P. No. 969193 decided on 18.6.1993 (Madanlal v. S. T.A. T. & Ors). In reply it was contended on behalf of respondent No. 2 that the petitioner/M.P.S.R.T.C. had no locus standi as it held a temporary permit alone and did not hold a permanent permit. Having heard the learned counsel and perused the record we are of the opinion that this case is covered by the aforesaid two earlier decisions of this Court. In reply it was contended on behalf of respondent No. 2 that the petitioner/M.P.S.R.T.C. had no locus standi as it held a temporary permit alone and did not hold a permanent permit. Having heard the learned counsel and perused the record we are of the opinion that this case is covered by the aforesaid two earlier decisions of this Court. Our decision in Chenram's case (supra) emphasises relying on observation in Mithilesh Garg v. U.O.I. ( AIR 1992 SC 443 ) that it was absolutely essential to hear the competitors because the conditions of roads, social status of the applicant, possibility of small operators being eliminated by big operators and pollution control, conditions of hilly routes, fuel availability have to be taken into consideration by the R.T.A while deciding grant or refusal of permit and it is not possible for it to have this vital information unless someone interested in the route brings it before it. Obviously, rival operators would serve as an important source of information to the R.T.A on the aforesaid points. If that is the state of affairs, whether an objector hold a temporary permit or permanent permit would hardly matter. Actually if that is the purpose of allowing objections, it would also not be necessary for an objector to hold a permit on the route. Any person who could show sufficient reasons in the plying of passenger buses on the route whether as a transport operator or a public worker or as a passenger himself would have sufficient locus standi to object, and once he is heard as an objector before the R.T.A for the reasons stated in M.P. No. 730/93 on the principles of natural justice such an objector will have to be heard by the S.T.A.T. For the aforesaid reasons we allow this petition following our decisions in M.P.No. 730/93 and 969193. The impugned order of the S.T.AT. is set aside for violation of principles of natural justice. The case is remanded back to the S.T.AT. for fixing a date of hearing giving notice of the date to all those who had objected before the R.T.A to the grant of the permit as also all the parties who were heard on the application by the R.T.A Parties to appear before the S.T.AT. Gwalior on 20th Sept, 1993. There shall be no order as to costs. Amount of security if deposited be refunded after verification. Gwalior on 20th Sept, 1993. There shall be no order as to costs. Amount of security if deposited be refunded after verification. AIR 1992 SC 443 followed.