Judgment :- All these writ petitions are filed challenging the impugned judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, passed in M.V.Appeal No.68 of 2007 dated 17.9.2008. While the W.P.No.24563 of 2008 has been filed by M.Sivaji, the appellant before the Tribunal, W.P.No.958 of 2009 has been filed by the third respondent before the Tribunal, viz., R.Nallathambi and W.P.(MD) No.3694 of 2007 filed by the second respondent before the Tribunal, by name, S.V.S.Rameshkumar. 2. For the purpose of brevity, the parties are referred to as found in W.P.No.24563 of 2008. 3. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.24563 of 2008, M.Sivaji is stated to have applied for permit for plying his bus bearing registration No.TN-55-K-5583 on the route Kalamavur gate to Peravoorani in respect of which it is stated that he has been granted permit by the second respondent, the Regional Transport Authority, Pudukottai which is valid up to 14.1.2011. 3(a). It is the case of the petitioner that since he was to go out of the country, he made his cousin brother, Nagaraj to look after his bus. It is stated that since there was certain fraud alleged to have been committed by him, there was a loss and at the request of the third respondent, S.V.S.Rameshkumar and his father who are stated to be known to the petitioner and who have approached to rescue the petitioner from his problems, the petitioner consented to give a joint application to transfer the bus permit to the name of the third respondent, on the belief that the third respondent would transfer the permit again in the name of the petitioner after solving the problems. Accordingly, a joint application dated 12.6.2006 was filed by the petitioner and the third respondent, S.V.S.Rameshkumar to transfer the stage carriage permit in respect of TN-55-K-5583 plying on the said route in favour of the third respondent, under section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3(b). While so, the 4th respondent, R.Nallathambi is stated to have objected to the transfer of permit in the name of the third respondent on 27.6.2006. It is stated that such objection has been raised by the 4th respondent before the transfer was effected in the name of the third respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that after the 4th respondent raised objection, the second respondent has not passed any order of transfer and the same is kept pending. It is stated that such objection has been raised by the 4th respondent before the transfer was effected in the name of the third respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that after the 4th respondent raised objection, the second respondent has not passed any order of transfer and the same is kept pending. It is the case of the petitioner that the note order stated to have been passed by the second respondent on 28.6.2006 was not passed. The second respondent issued a notice to the petitioner as well as the respondent 3 and 4 to conduct hearings on several dates and final hearing was conducted on 22.1.2007. 3(c). It is stated that thereafter, the petitioner came to know about the fraudulent intention of the third respondent to cheat him and therefore, he gave a letter to the second respondent on 16.1.2007 withdrawing the transfer application dated 12.6.2006. It is alleged that during the course of hearing, when the petitioner came to know about some manipulations stated to have been effected by the third respondent, certain complaints have been made. However, the second respondent ultimately passed orders on 25.1.2007 transferring the permit in the name of the third respondent based on the consent application dated 12.6.2006. 3(d). It is, against the said order of the second respondent, the petitioner filed appeal before the first respondent Tribunal in MV. Appeal No.68 of 2007 and the Appellate Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 17.9.2008, confirmed the order of the second respondent. 4. W.P.(MD) No.3694 of 2007 has been filed by the third respondent S.V.S.Rameshkumar challenging a portion of the original order of the second respondent dated 25.1.2007, by which the third respondent as transferee has been directed to produce the permit and registration certificate of the vehicle together with valid insurance certificate, fitness certificate and certificate as to the payment of current tax within four months from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the sanction accorded would be revoked as per rule 213(1) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 without further notice, and also to issue a consequential direction to the second respondent to direct the respondents 3 and 4 to produce registration certificate of the vehicle along with insurance certificate, tax certificate, etc. 5. 5. The writ petitioner and the 4th respondent have filed the writ petitions in W.P.No.24563 of 2008 and 958 of 2009 respectively challenging the impugned order of the first respondent Tribunal on the ground that the same is against the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules that no note order or sanction was passed by the second respondent on 28.6.2006 and the same was created in collusion with the third respondent, that the note order can neither be a sanction, nor an order as contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Rules, that the note order itself does not amount to granting the sanction and the existence of such note order has never been revealed at any point of time, that even if any such order was passed, the same can be cancelled and therefore, by virtue of the powers under rule 210 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, the second respondent ought to have cancelled such note order, that various other internal communications show that there is no note order, that the petitioner has not received any consideration for the purpose of transfer in the name of the third respondent, that in the representation dated 16.1.2007, the petitioner has withdrawn the application for transfer, that the first respondent has failed to consider the true impact of the rule 210 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules,1989 and that there is no finding on the order of the second respondent dated 28.6.2006, apart from many other grounds. 6. In W.P.No.958 of 2009, the writ petition filed by the 4th respondent Nallathambi, the 4th respondent in fact supported the writ petitioner on the basis that there was no such note order by the Regional Transport authority and that the writ petitioner in W.P.No.958 of 2009 raised objection about the transfer even before the transfer application made by the third respondent and the petitioner and the same should have been taken by the second respondent. 6(a). 6(a). It is the case of the 4th respondent Nallathambi in his writ petition that he entered into an agreement with the petitioner M.Sivaji and his brothers to purchase the permit in respect of the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-55-F-6070 and paid full sale consideration and obtained delivery note and sale receipt in the prescribed Form Nos.29 and 30 and the said Sivaji gave a joint application in his favour and he also paid the proper fees in the Office of the Regional Transport Authority on 6.1.2004 for the transfer of permit. In the meantime, the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-55-F-6070 was replaced by the new vehicle bearing registration No.TN-55-K-5583 and the loan availed in respect of that vehicle was cleared by him and after the repayment of the new vehicle, a fresh joint application was filed by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.24563 of 2008 and the same was submitted on 5.10.2005 along with all documents stating that the said application is based on the sale consideration which was passed earlier in 2003. 6(b). It is stated that after the said petitioner Sivaji executed the joint application, there has been some dispute in the joint family and there was a panchayat and the dispute persisted. In the meantime, the third respondent, S.V.S. Rameshkumar took advantage of the dispute and in the guise of helping the said Sivaji, he entered into a joint application on 12.6.2006 before the Transport Commissioner, Chennai, which is, according to him, to grab the permit, since the consideration had already been paid by the 4th respondent Nallathambi. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent in W.P.No.24563 of 2008, viz., the Regional Transport Authority, it is sated that the petitioner in the said writ petition along with the third respondent S.V.S.Rameshkumar filed a joint application on 12.6.2006 in respect of the stage carriage permit for the vehicle in TN-55-K-5583 plying on the route from Kalamavur gate to Peravoorani, to transfer the permit in the name of the third respondent and the said application was presented before the Transport Commissioner, Chennai and forwarded to the Regional Transport Office, Pudukottai on 14.6.2006 to process the same and pass orders in accordance with law. 7(a). 7(a). It is stated that the second respondent received the said application on 22.6.2006 and both the petitioner and the third respondent appeared before the second respondent on 22.6.2006 and affixed their signatures on the said date before the Regional Transport Officer. It is stated that on the same day, the Regional Transport Officer called for a report from the Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade-I, Pudukottai regarding the genuineness of the residential address and workshop inspection, etc. and the Motor Vehicles Inspector also filed a report. It is stated that on 26.6.2006 itself the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority, Pudukottai submitted a detailed note for orders of permit before the Regional Transport Authority and on the same day, the Authority made an endorsement stating, “what is the procedure to be following for such transfer of permit as per rules extent? Have those rules and procedure been followed?” 7(b). It is stated that on 27.6.2006, the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority submitted a detailed note about the procedure and on 28.6.2006, the second respondent passed an order viz., “Since all statutory provisions and conditions have been met, permission may be granted for transfer of permit. Put orders to that effect”. It is stated that in the meantime, the 4th respondent, Nallathambi sent a telegram on 27.6.2007 stated to have been received at 2.30 p.m. stating that he is running the vehicle on the route, and requested the second respondent to desist from transferring the permit to third parties without his consent and production of original permit and registration certificate of the vehicle. The said telegram was put up before the second respondent on 7.7.2006 to convene a hearing among the applicants and objectors and hearing notice was issued on 7.7.2006 calling upon the parties to appear on 24.7.2006. 7(c). On 24.7.2006, the petitioner and the third respondent filed a joint written representation along with an authorization letter of the petitioner, in which they have stated that the 4th respondent Nallathambi has no locus standi to object to the transfer and therefore, asked for early disposal of the joint application without reference to the objection of the 4th respondent. However, the objector asked for adjournment of hearing to 8.8.2006 and subsequently to 18.8.2006 and on the said date, both the objector and the joint applicants did not appear and the matter was adjourned. However, the objector asked for adjournment of hearing to 8.8.2006 and subsequently to 18.8.2006 and on the said date, both the objector and the joint applicants did not appear and the matter was adjourned. In the meantime, the third respondent filed W.P.No.9475 of 2006 in the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court to transfer the proceedings based on the note file order of the second respondent dated 28.6.2006. 7(d). In the meantime, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 16.1.2007, which was received by the second respondent on 19.1.2007 stating that he is withdrawing the joint application submitted on 12.6.2006. Since the order was passed by the second respondent on 28.6.2006 effecting transfer, the second respondent became functus officio and the hearing on the basis of the letter of the petitioner dated 16.1.2007 was justified. Ultimately, the Regional Transport Authority passed the order on 25.1.2007 stating that the note order passed on 28.6.2006 holds good and the transfer has been allowed and the objection raised by the 4th respondent Nallathambi has been considered and rejected. 7(e). The application filed by the petitioner Sivaji on 16.1.2007 for withdrawal of consent dated 26.6.2006 was rejected since by that time, the sanction order was passed on 28.6.2006 itself. In the said order, the second respondent directed the transferee third respondent to produce the permit, registration certificate of the vehicle, etc. as per rule 213 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, which is challenged by the third respondent transferee in W.P.(MD) No.3694 of 2007. The writ petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the order of the second respondent which was also dismissed. 8. The point that is to be considered in these writ petitions is, whether the note order stated to have been passed by the second respondent on 28.6.2006, allowing the joint application filed by the petitioner along with the third respondent dated 12.6.2006 for transferring the permit in respect of the vehicle in question in favour of the third respondent S.V.S.Rameshkumar is valid and that has the effect of transferring the permit in favour of the third respondent? 9. 9. While considering the said question, it is incidental to find out as to whether the conduct of the petitioner, who has given the joint application along with the third respondent on 12.6.2006 requesting transfer of permit in the name of the third respondent and who has also taken a stand at the time of hearing on 24.7.2006 that the 4th respondent Nallathambi has no locus standi to object the transfer, but subsequently changed his stand by going back from his earlier stand, is acceptable, especially when the second respondent passed orders on 25.1.2007 confirming the note order dated 28.6.2006. 10. A reading of the entire facts show that the writ petitioner, who has jointly signed along with the third respondent, S.V.S.Rameshkumar on 12.6.2006 agreeing for transfer of permit in respect of the stage carriage bearing registration No.TN-55-K-5583 and subsequently reiterated the same on the date of hearing before the second respondent on 24.7.2006 stating that the 4th respondent Nallathambi has no locus standi to question the said transfer, has chosen to take a different stand by joining hands with the 4th respondent Nallathambi to go against the third respondent, the original transferee under the joint application dated 12.6.2006. The main objection raised on behalf of the writ petitioner is that the note order passed by the second respondent dated 28.6.2006 cannot be deemed to be an order passed under the Motor Vehicles Rules and according to him, some fraud has been played in obtaining such order. The 4th respondent who was originally objected to by the petitioner has now joined with the petitioner to raise objections against the third respondent. 11. It is seen that the sale receipt dated 28.4.2003 stated to be issued by the petitioner Sivaji for an amount of Rs.4 lakhs in the name of the 4th respondent Nallathambi is relating to another and different vehicle bearing registration No.TN-55-F-6070 running on a different route between Pudukottai and Peravoorani via, Alangudi, Aranthangi and Subramaniapuram, as per the permit which was valid up to 14.1.2006. It is in respect of that vehicle the petitioner Sivaji has signed in Form Nos.29 and 30. 12. It is in respect of that vehicle the petitioner Sivaji has signed in Form Nos.29 and 30. 12. Even though it is stated that thereafter as against the said consideration for the transfer of the above said vehicle, there was a joint application made by the petitioner and the 4th respondent in respect of the vehicle in question viz., TN-55-K-5583, there is nothing to show that the second respondent who is the authority competent to effect such transfer has passed any order of transfer in the name of the 4th respondent. In the meantime, there are receipts to show that the petitioner received an amount of Rs.8 lakhs from the third respondent on 28.6.2006 for the purpose of transferring the permit in respect of TN-55-K-5583, in respect of which originally the joint application was made by the petitioner and the third respondent on 12.6.2006 to the Transport Commissioner, Chennai which was transferred to the second respondent on 26.6.2006 and on the said date, both the petitioner and the third respondent affixed their signatures before the Regional Transport Officer who also countersigned the same. 13. The second respondent passed the note order on 28.6.2006. It was only on 16.1.2007, the petitioner addressed a letter to the second respondent withdrawing his joint application dated 12.6.2006. A reference to the letter dated 16.1.2007 makes it clear and it is also admitted that the joint application entered between the petitioner and the third respondent dated 12.6.2006 as it is filed by the petitioner himself in his typed-set of papers, was again signed before the second respondent after the application was received from the Transport Commissioner on 26.6.2006 and it was, only thereafter on 16.1.2007, the petitioner chose to give his objections withdrawing the original consent application. Inasmuch as the joint application is stated to have been filed by the petitioner and the 4th respondent Nallathambi as early as 5.10.2005, in which nobody is stated to have claimed any interest on the basis of orders from the second respondent, nor the second respondent has passed any order transferring the permit in the name of the 4th respondent, the present claim of the 4th respondent can only be termed as a collusive attempt with the petitioner to help him illegally to get over the third respondent. 14. 14. A reference to the original order of the second respondent dated 25.1.2007 shows that the second respondent passed an order on 28.6.2006, of course, a note order, but, in the meantime, since objections were received, for the purpose of giving opportunity to all the parties, a detailed enquiry was conducted. In fact, the first respondent in his original order, has found that the objection raised by the 4th respondent is not entertainable under Rule 211 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules,1989. 15. Under Rule 211 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules,1989 only the parties to the application for transfer of permit are entitled to have summons of hearing. The said Rule is as follows: “211. Summoning of parties.- The Transport Authority may summon both the parties to the application for the transfer of a permit to appear before it. If the application raises doubts or suspicion of trafficking in permits or involves transfer to a person who in the opinion of the Transport Authority is not qualified and eligible for the grant of a new permit, the application shall be rejected.” As correctly found by the second respondent, the original authority, the so-called objections of the 4th respondent do not fall within the ambit of Rule 211 and therefore, the second respondent has found that the objections raised by the 4th respondent are not sustainable in law. As far as the claim of the petitioner who has withdrawn the consent on 17.1.2007 is concerned, the original authority has come to a conclusion as per Rule 212 of the said Rules as follows: “212. Withdrawal of consent for transfer.- When the consent of either or both the parties to the transfer of a permit is withdrawn before transfer is sanctioned, the Transport Authority shall drop further proceedings in regard to the transfer of that permit: Provided that, when either of the parties withdraws such consent, the Transport Authority shall, before dropping such proceedings inform the other party of the withdrawal of consent.” The second respondent has already taken a decision and therefore, the question of withdrawal after such decision does not arise. 16. This Court on reference to the file produced by the learned Government Advocate, is able to find that in fact a note order was passed by the second respondent on 26.6.2006. 16. This Court on reference to the file produced by the learned Government Advocate, is able to find that in fact a note order was passed by the second respondent on 26.6.2006. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance on Rule 210, that the transfer has to be treated as void for giving false information, has absolutely no meaning. That apart, Rules 208, 209 and 210 are to be read together. Under Rule 210 which is as follows: “210. Transfer to be void for false information.- Without prejudice to any other penalty to which the parties may be liable, any transfer of a permit ordered upon an application which the Transport Authority is subsequently satisfied was false in respect of the matter specified in rule 209 or in respect of any other materials particular shall be void.” Only if there are material to show that a false information has been given not only in respect of the particulars relating to premium, etc., but also in respect of other material particulars, the transfer of permit would be declared void, apart from imposition of penalty. That is absolutely not an issue before the second respondent in this case at all. In the absence of any material to show that any fraud has been played by the third respondent or any misleading statement has been made when the second respondent passed orders by way of note order dated 28.6.2006, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the 4th respondent that the transfer effected in the name of the third respondent should be held as void. The second respondent having effected transfer has not communicated the same for the reason that in the meantime, objection was raised and in order to give opportunity to all the parties, he gave notice of hearing to all the parties. 17. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Sethi Auto Service Station and another vs. Delhi9 Development Authority and others [ (2009) 1 SCC 180 ], on which reliance was placed by Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner to show that departmental notes have no sanction of law is certainly not applicable to the facts of the present case. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Sethi Auto Service Station and another vs. Delhi9 Development Authority and others [ (2009) 1 SCC 180 ], on which reliance was placed by Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner to show that departmental notes have no sanction of law is certainly not applicable to the facts of the present case. That relates to a positive right of grant of petrol outlets and gas godowns as per guidelines of Delhi Development Authority and it was, in those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the note order made by the Delhi Development Authority on the departmental files have no sanction of law is certainly not applicable to the facts of the present case. That relates to a positive right of grant of petrol outlets and gas godowns as per the guidelines of Delhi Development Authority and it was in those circumstances notings made by the Delhi Development Authority in the Departmental files was held to have no sanction of law and it can at the most be held as a opinion. 18. The transfer of permit is provided under section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1982 which is as follows: "82. Transfer of permit.- (1) Save as provided in sub-section (2), a permit shall not be transferable from oner person to another except with the permission of the transport authority which granted the permit and shall not, without such permission, oper4ate to confer on any person to whom a vehicle covered by the permit is transferred any right to use that vehicle in the manner authorised by the permit. (2) Where the holder of a permit dies, the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle covered by the permit may, for a period of three months, use the permit as if it had been granted to himself: Provided that such person has, within thirty days of the death of the holder, informed the transport authority which granted the permit of the holder and of his own intention to use the permit: Provided further that no permit shall be so used after the date on which it would have ceased to be effective without renewal in the hands of the deceased holder. (3) The transport authority may, on application made to it within three months of the death of the holder of a permit, transfer the permit to the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicles covered by the permit: Provided that the transport authority may entertain an application made after the expiry of the said period of three months if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified.” The above section makes it clear that the transfer is effective only after permission granted by the Transport Authority under Rule 208 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules which is as under: “208. Permit – transfer of.- When the holder of a permit desires to transfer the permit to some other person under sub-section (1) of section 82, he shall together with the person to whom he desires to make the transfer make joint application in writing to the Transport Authority by which the permit was issued, setting forth the reasons for the proposed transfer. Fee for transfer of permit shall be as prescribed in the Table under rule 279.” 19. The said Rule provides for a joint application to be made by the transferor and the transferee. A combined reading of the provisions of the Act and the Rules show that when by mutual consent between the transferor and transferee, the application is filed before the authority competent to accept or reject, and under the circumstances prevailed, if the authority has accepted the joint application by which time there was no objection from any party competent to raise such objection, it should be taken as a validly granted transfer which of course, only enables the transferee to act as per the transfer order. Therefore, the communication of such transfer order is for the benefit of the transferee. The petitioner filed the joint application along with the third respondent on 26.6.2006 and put his signature in the second respondent’s Office, but he raised objection by withdrawing his consent for the first time on 17.1.2007, by which time the authority competent took a decision and only the further action of communicating the decision to the transferee was to take place. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner himself has not approached the authority with clean hands, I do not see any reason to hold that the note order passed by the second respondent dated 28.6.2006 suffers from any illegality. Again, the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar vs. Kripalu Shankar [ (1987) 3 SCC 34 ] relied upon by Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel is not applicable. That was a case where contempt proceedings were sought to be initiated based on certain official notes in the form of minutes in the internal files and it was held that such proceedings cannot be sustained. 20. The other submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the 4th respondent that as long as the office note order has not been communicated, that cannot be treated as a legal document is also not sustainable, since that is a communication which is only for the benefit of the third respondent. The authority is well within his jurisdiction to take a decision regarding the transfer, before valid objection is received from the party to the joint consent since such objection is sustainable in law. The law relating to communication of acceptance as contemplated under section 4 of the Indian Contract Act has no application to the facts of the present case, especially when the second respondent being the statutory authority is empowered to pass orders and only because the communication has been delayed due to various reasons, it does not mean that the decision becomes automatically invalid. On the facts and circumstances of the case, there is nothing to infer that the second respondent has passed the note order on 28.6.2006 with mala fide intention or in a collusive mood and that is also not the case of the parties to the proceedings. 21. As held by this Court in Unnamalai Achi vs. K.Damodaran Nair [ 1965(1) MLJ 294 ], the objections by the 4th respondent need not be given hearing by the second respondent and his right lies elsewhere, if he is aggrieved by such transfer being effected. 22. The rule that no third party can raise objection for transfer is well settled as it was held by D.Raju,J (as He then was) in C.R.P.No.1052 of 1983 by order dated 15.04.1994, wherein His Lordship, while referring to the rules, held as follows: “9. ..... 22. The rule that no third party can raise objection for transfer is well settled as it was held by D.Raju,J (as He then was) in C.R.P.No.1052 of 1983 by order dated 15.04.1994, wherein His Lordship, while referring to the rules, held as follows: “9. ..... The provisions of Rule 199, after such amendment taken together with rule 199A would go to show that if at all it is only the transferor or at any rate a party to the joint application who can at the most be said to have any say in the matter of transfer and not a third party ... like the petitioner/objector herein. The rules providing for transfer of a permit does not visualise the staking of any claim for transfer of a permit by a person otherwise than by making a joint application filed before the competent authority. ...” 23. That has been reiterated by P.K.Misra, J. in W.P.Nos.2619 and 2620 of 1996 by order dated 26.6.2003 wherein after referring to the above said judgment of D.Raju, J., held as follows: "9. In C.r.P.Nos.1052 of 1982 and 4561 of 1983 disposed of on 15.4.1994, Justice D.Raju (as His Lordship then was) observed:- .... In the light of the above, as the rules stood at the relevant point of time when the petitioner/objector to the transfer, he had no right or locus standi whatsoever to make any objection to the transfer he being not a party to the joint application filed and consequently could not be said to be a person aggrieved to file any appeal for the revision under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,1939. 10. A comparison of the old Rules and the present Rules rather makes it amply clear that under the present Rules there is no scope for giving opportunity of hearing to any other person including an operator on the existing route. The Rules do not contemplate giving of any opportunity of hearing to a third party raising objections relating to title or ownership over the vehicle in question. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent, however, submitted that the earlier decisions, which were rendered under the old Rules, are not applicable and moreover those decisions have not taken into consideration the right of appeal available under the Rules. There is no doubt that appeal can be filed by a person aggrieved. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent, however, submitted that the earlier decisions, which were rendered under the old Rules, are not applicable and moreover those decisions have not taken into consideration the right of appeal available under the Rules. There is no doubt that appeal can be filed by a person aggrieved. If it is already held that there is no scope of opportunity of hearing to any third party and the third party did not have any locus standi to be heard before the authority, it cannot be construed that such a third party can be a person aggrieved. 12. It is also contended that as a matter of fact notice had been issued by the original authority to the present contesting respondent and therefore, without service of notice, the matter could not have been decided. Since the person had no right under the Act or the Rules to raise any objection, even if any direction was issued to issue notice that is of no consequence and issuance of such notice would not have conferred right on the contesting respondent under the Act or the Rules. 13. Once it is held that notice is not required to be issued to third party claiming right over the vehicle/permit and notice was only required to be issued to the applicants and the objectors had no locus standi to raise any objection, such a person cannot be treated as a person aggrieved to file any appeal. The appeal at the instance of such objector was not maintainable. On this ground alone, writ petitions are bound to be allowed and the order of the appellate authority is liable to be quashed.” 24. That was also the view of S.Jagadeesan,J. in W.P.No.5384 of 1998 by order dated 4.9.1996 wherein His Lordship held as under: “7. Admittedly, the petitioner claims his right under the agreement entered into with the third respondent dated 23.09.96. When the petitioner is seeking to enforce his right under the agreement entered into between himself and the third respondent, it is only contractual obligation which the petitioner is seeking to enforce. This court as well as the Apex court has repeatedly held that the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for the purpose of enforcing the contractual obligations. On this short ground, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.” 25. This court as well as the Apex court has repeatedly held that the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for the purpose of enforcing the contractual obligations. On this short ground, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.” 25. A reference to the Tribunal’s judgment shows that the Tribunal has in fact considered the contention raised by the petitioner that when the sanction order has been passed by the second respondent on 28.6.2006, subsequently the second respondent has no jurisdiction to vitiate the earlier order, by referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s.Ravi Roadways vs. Asla Bi [ AIR 1970 SC 1241 ], and has come to the correct conclusion that the sanction order passed by the second respondent on 28.6.2006 is perfectly valid in law and deserves not to be interfered with. 26. As far as W.P.(MD)No.3694 of 2007 is concerned, when it is held that the impugned order of the first respondent Tribunal needs no interference, consequently, the transfer of permit in the name of the third respondent is upheld. Necessarily, the provisions of Rule 213 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules are to be followed in this regard. At this stage, it is relevant to extract Rule 213 which is as follows: "213.Transfer of permit – endorsement of transfer.- (1) If the Transport Authority is satisfied that the transfer of permits may properly be made, it shall call upon in writing the holder of the permit and the other party to forward within four months from the date of receipt of the order sanctioning the transfer, the permit and the certificate of registration of the vehicle with the particulars of the transfer of ownership of the vehicle stated thereon together with valid certificate of fitness and proof for payment of the current tax under the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1947 (Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1974). In the event of the parties concerned failing to produce the relevant records within the period of four months aforesaid, the Transport Authority shall revoke the sanction. (2) The Transport Authority may delegate the power conferred on it by sub-rule(1) to its Secretary in case where the Secretary has sanctioned the transfer of the permit. In the event of the parties concerned failing to produce the relevant records within the period of four months aforesaid, the Transport Authority shall revoke the sanction. (2) The Transport Authority may delegate the power conferred on it by sub-rule(1) to its Secretary in case where the Secretary has sanctioned the transfer of the permit. (3) The powers referred to in sub-rule (1) shall also be exercisable by the appellate or revisional authority as the case may be where orders sanctioning the transfer of permit is ordered by such authority. (4) Upon receipt of the permit the Transport Authority shall cancell the particulars of the holder thereon and endorse particulars of the transferee and shall return the permit to the transferee. (5) If a permit has been endorsed or extended under the provisions of these rules, the endorsement or extension shall cease to have effect on the date of transfer unless the Transport Authority or by its secretary if so authorised in this behalf which granted the endorsement or extension directs that it shall be continued. An application for the continuance of endorsement or extension of validity shall be accompanied by a fee as specified in the Table under rule 279. (6) The Transport Authority shall, where a permit other than a stage carriage permit is transferred in the name of a person residing in another region within the State, intimate to the Transport Authority in whose region the transferee resides and the permit in question shall be replaced with a fresh permit as per sub-section (4) of section 80 and replaced permit shall be renewable by the Regional Transport Authority of the region under whose jurisdiction the transferee resides as per sub-section (2) of section 81. The fee for such replacement of permit shall be fifty per cent of the fee payable for grant of such permit. (7) An application for continuance of counter-signature of permit in respect of a vehicle of other State shall be accompanied by a fee as specified in the Table under rule 279.” 27. The said Rule enables the Transport Authority to give notice not only to the parties to the transfer, but to any other party directing them to produce permit, certificate of registration, etc. The said Rule enables the Transport Authority to give notice not only to the parties to the transfer, but to any other party directing them to produce permit, certificate of registration, etc. In these circumstances, it is left open to the second respondent, the Regional Transport Authority to take appropriate action regarding effecting the transfer as per Rule 213 by giving notice to the concerned parties in whose possession the documents such as, the certificate of registration, etc. relating to the vehicle in question are lying and the second respondent is directed to take such steps by giving notice as prescribed under Rule 213 of the said Rules within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 28. W.P.Nos.24563 of 2008 and 958 of 2009 are dismissed and W.P.(MD) No.3694 of 2007 is ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.