M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) I have heard the petitioner's learned Advocate as also the learned Government Advocate. Though the petition which has been filed by the Dakshina Kannada Bus Operators' Association presents a composite challenge with regard to different heads, the majority of them do not survive in view of the decision of the supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg and Others v Union of India and Others. It is therefore unnecessary either to reproduce these heads of challenge or to give any findings with regard to the same. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS' learned Advocate however pointed out to me that there is one aspect of the matter which is creating some amount of operational problem particularly with regard to the existing operators. Mr. Bhat pointed out that after the promulgation of the new Motor Vehicles Act and the liberalisation of the policy relating to the grant of permit, that it has almost become mechanical for a permit to be granted and that this has had several serious undesirable effects. For one thing, indiscriminately applications are made and once they are granted there is gross overcrowding but more importantly unhealthy competition resulting in various unhealthy practices being followed. He demonstrated a concrete instance where on an already over-congested route a new applicant applies for a permit, gets one almost by default because the authorities find it difficult to refuse the permit and thereafter is allotted timings which would seriously encroach upon the rights of the existing operators to do business in so far as the service either conflicts with the existing one or run in a manner that is so close to it that the existing operator finds it extremely difficult to carry on. This results in a virtual battle for survival on the road which means that the buses are competing with each other, they are driven recklessly and the aspect of safety both to the passengers and to the public gets seriously endangered. Mr. Bhat submits that Section 89 as it has been interpreted has been understood to mean that the right to appeal is only in relation to the applicant for a permit who may be aggrieved by the rejection or any other part of the order and that the existing operators or others who are affected by the passing of such orders do not have the locus standi to file an appeal/revision. He submits therefore that this remedy has virtually been taken away and that the infringement of one's right cannot be redressed. To this extent, he submits that the relevant provisions of Section 89 are liable to be struck down. ( 3 ) LEARNED Government Advocate has countered the positionby pointing out that Section 89 (g) of the Act does make a provision for any person who is aggrieved by any other order which may be passed to file an appeal. The learned Government advocate also points out to me that a revision is competent in such a situation and that it would therefore be incorrect to hold that there is no remedy. A clear reading of the provisions would indicate that in those of the cases where rights have been infringed upon or the prejudice is manifest, that it is certainly be open to the affected party to carry the matter higher. It would therefore be difficult to hold that the provisions of the New Act in this regard are either unfair or unjust or that they require to be struck down. ( 4 ) WHAT needs to be clarified however is that the object of corrective action should not be geared towards permitting an injustice to take place and thereafter try to rectify it because the corrective procedures will be long drawn out and also have unhappy consequences such as in the case where a permit is wrongly granted, a party invests a lot of money and may thereafter be disqualified. Alternatively, it would be equally unjust where a permit is wrongly granted and the recipient continues to operate the services for a long period of time until the appeal or revision is disposed of and it is well known that many "legal" methods can be invented to keep the proceeding going almost indefinitely. It is therefore far more rational to prescribe a provision whereby such a state of affairs is off-set to a large extent. ( 5 ) SECTION 72 of the Act empowers the authority to consider applications and grant permits. It is necessary to take into account the fact that in a large number of cases complaints are made that permits which should never have been granted are granted by the authorities and there are direct allegations that these are granted on grounds of favouritism or even rank corruption. It is necessary to take into account the fact that in a large number of cases complaints are made that permits which should never have been granted are granted by the authorities and there are direct allegations that these are granted on grounds of favouritism or even rank corruption. Undoing the damage at a subsequent point of time is an uphill task particularly because permits granted under such circumstances are clandestinely done. To some extent, the danger would be off-set if the procedure could be made more open and more transparent by reading in certain requirements at the stage. ( 6 ) THERE is a basic principle of jurisprudence which requires that a party likely to be affected by a decision must be given an opportunity of being heard. Translated into practical terms, it would mean that if there is an existing operator on a particular route and if the grant of a permit is likely to affect that operator's business or infringe upon the operator's rights that the authority ought not to take a decision in such a case without taking into account the say of that party who is being affected. The records are always available with the authority and it would therefore be necessary, for the authority considering an application either for grant of permit or for variation, to insist that notice be given to the existing operators and to hear them before taking a decision. By following this procedure, a complaint that the authority was not acquainted with certain aspects of the case or was not made aware of certain prohibitions such as part of the route being a notified one etc. would be eliminated. There is no need for the application to be unduly delayed in so far as the notice issued could specify the date when the application would be considered and could also mention very clearly that objections if any must be filed in writing before that date and that the parties are free to appear before the authority and make their submissions but if they do not do so, that the authority shall not be obliged to wait. By following such a procedure, the grievance that is sought to be canvassed with regard to the difficulties that may arise under Section 89 as it is now framed would to my mind, be taken care of almost completely. By following such a procedure, the grievance that is sought to be canvassed with regard to the difficulties that may arise under Section 89 as it is now framed would to my mind, be taken care of almost completely. If despite this situation a wrong order is passed, then it is always open to the aggrieved party to request the authority to stay the operation of the order for a reasonable period of time or to apply to the higher authority to do so pending disposal of the appeal. To my mind, these directions would more than off-set whatever the petitioners' grievances that still survive in this petition. ( 7 ) THE learned Government Advocate shall ensure that a copy of this judgment is forwarded to the Transport Commissioner who in turn shall ensure that these directions are communicated to the authorities in the State who deal with these cases. ( 8 ) THE petition partially succeeds to this extent. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .