JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J. - The present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). The prayer made in the petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated January 19, 2000 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) respondent No. 3. A copy of the aforesaid order dated January 19, 2000 has been appended as Annexure P.1 with the present petition. 2. The facts as averred in the petition show that Mansahia Transport Company Private Limited respondent No. 1 applied for the grant of increase in trips from 2 to 3 on certain routes in respect of two regular stage carriage permits No. 692/55 and 192/Reg/89. 3. Objections were invited by the State Transport Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner). Besides other persons, the Corporation also raised objections against the claim of Mansahia Transport Company Private Limited respondent No. 1. The Corporation claimed that the aforesaid routes for which application had been filed by respondent No. 1 in fact pertained to routes including the monopoly routes of the Corporation which had been protected under the Transport Scheme of 1990. After taking into consideration the said objections filed by the Corporation, the Commissioner rejected the application of respondent No. 1 vide order dated January 3, 1996. A copy of the aforesaid order dated January 3, 1996 has been appended as Annexure P.2 with the present petition. 4. The aforesaid company respondent No. 1 felt aggrieved. It filed an appeal before the Tribunal respondent No. 3. The Tribunal vide its order dated January 19, 2000 accepted the appeal of the company respondent No. 1 and set aside the order dated January 3, 1996. The application filed by the company respondent No. 1 for grant of increase of return trips from 2 to 3 was allowed. A copy of the aforesaid order dated January 19, 2000 has been appended as Annexure P.1 with the petition. 5. The Corporation is now aggrieved against the order Annexure P.1 and has approached this Court through the present petition. Various grounds of attack have been taken by the petitioner Corporation to assail the order Annexure P.1. A copy of the aforesaid order dated January 19, 2000 has been appended as Annexure P.1 with the petition. 5. The Corporation is now aggrieved against the order Annexure P.1 and has approached this Court through the present petition. Various grounds of attack have been taken by the petitioner Corporation to assail the order Annexure P.1. However, primarily the said order has been impugned on the ground that although various objections have been raised by various objectors including the petitioner Corporation but while passing the order Annexure P.1, the learned Tribunal had neither chosen to issue any notice to any of the said objectors, including the Corporation, nor any opportunity of hearing was ever provided to them. Thus, the order Annexure P.1 is challenged on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 6. In response to the notice of the writ petition, separate written statements have been filed. A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. In the aforesaid written statement the fact that the objections had been raised by many transport operators, including the petitioner Corporation, have not been denied. It has further not been denied that the order Annexure P.1 had been passed without issuing any notice to any of the objectors, including the petitioner Corporation, and also that no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to any of the objectors. However, the aforesaid respondent has maintained that although objections have been raised by various parties before the Commissioner but subsequently none of the objectors chose to appear at the time of arguments and, therefore, it could be taken that none of the objectors was interested to press the said objections and, as such, neither any notice was required to be issued to them nor any opportunity of hearing was required to be afforded. 7. We have heard Sh. Jagdish Marwaha, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Rupinder S. Khosla, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 8. A perusal of the order dated January 3, 1996 Annexure P.2 passed by the Commissioner would show that on receipt of the application of respondent No. 1 for grant of increase of trips, a public notice under Rule 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act was issued. 8. A perusal of the order dated January 3, 1996 Annexure P.2 passed by the Commissioner would show that on receipt of the application of respondent No. 1 for grant of increase of trips, a public notice under Rule 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act was issued. The said notice was published in the Motor Transport Gazette on July, 8, 1994. In response to the publication of the said notice, objections were received from various transport operators. The petitioner Corporation was also one of the operators. 9. Although none of the objectors had appeared at the time of arguments before the Commissioner and the aforesaid fact was even noticed by the learned Commissioner, yet objections filed by the various transport operators were taken into consideration by the learned Commissioner while passing the aforesaid order. After taking into consideration all the said objections, the application filed by the company respondent No. 1 was dismissed and its prayer for grant of increase in routs was rejected. 10. Thereafter, when the matter was taken up in appeal by respondent No. 1 before the learned Tribunal respondent No. 3, it chose not to implead anyone of the objectors as party to the aforesaid appeal. The learned Tribunal also without issuing any notice to any of the objectors, including the petitioner Corporation, and without affording them any opportunity of hearing in the matter, chose to accept the appeal by passing an order dated January 19, 2000 (Annexure P.1). 11. Thus, it is apparent that the order Annexure P.1 is in utter disregard and in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. The order impugned before the learned Tribunal was passed by the Commissioner on the objections raised by various parties, including the petitioner Corporation. Thus, in appeal before the learned Tribunal, all the objectors were necessary parties. They were not impleaded. Not only that, no notice of hearing of the appeal was ever served upon them. No opportunity of hearing was ever granted to them. The learned Tribunal chose to proceed in the matter behind the back of the said objectors, including the petitioner Corporation. This action of the learned Tribunal on the face of it is in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. The said action cannot be legally sustained. 12. No opportunity of hearing was ever granted to them. The learned Tribunal chose to proceed in the matter behind the back of the said objectors, including the petitioner Corporation. This action of the learned Tribunal on the face of it is in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. The said action cannot be legally sustained. 12. Accordingly, we allow the present petition and quash the order dated January 19, 2000 passed by the Tribunal, Punjab, copy whereof has been appended as Annexure P.1 with the petition and remit back the matter to the learned Tribunal to decide the matter afresh after issuing necessary notices to all the objectors as are detailed in the order Annexure P.2. The matter shaft be decided by the learned Tribunal after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned in accordance with law. Petition allowed.