JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior, in Appeal No.27/2021. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner -M/s. Dharmendra Travels Pvt. Ltd. is the owner of eight buses registration number of which has been mentioned in the order dated 23.7.2021 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Chambal Division, Morena, out of aforesaid eight buses, permit of six buses was granted in favour of the petitioner which is valid from 9.12.2020 to 8.12.2025. Respondent No.3 made a complaint before the competent authority alleging therein that said registration is illegal as it has been obtained on the basis of forged documents. When such complaint was not decided by the competent authority, respondent No.3 approached this Court by filing writ petition No.1262/2021 and this Court vide order dated 28.1.2021 directed competent authority to decide the complaint within a period of four weeks. Thereafter competent authority enquired the matter and prima facie found that there is illegality in the registration of buses. The petitioner in the meanwhile challenged the order dated 28.1.2021 of this Court by filing writ appeal No.207/2021 which was dismissed by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.8.2021. Thereafter, RTO, Bhind, by its order dated 22.7.2021 passed in Case No.164/2021 exercising powers under Section 55(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cancelled the registration of aforesaid eight buses of the petitioner and recommended for cancellation of permit of the aforesaid buses. There upon Regional Transport Authority, Chambal Division, Morena, on the basis of record cancelled the permit granted earlier to six buses by exercising its powers under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the RTA, Chambal Division, Morena, petitioner preferred appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior. During pendency of the appeal, objector/intervener - Bus Operator Union Bhind filed an application seeking impleadment as intervener in the aforesaid appeal on the ground that on the basis of its complaint in regard to illegal registration of the buses, registration of said buses has been cancelled and therefore, Bus Union is a necessary party and hence Bus Union be permitted to contest the appeal. By the impugned order, STAT allowed the said application, and therefore, this petition has been filed by the petitioner- M/s. Dharmendra Travels Pvt. Ltd. 3. By the impugned order, STAT allowed the said application, and therefore, this petition has been filed by the petitioner- M/s. Dharmendra Travels Pvt. Ltd. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.3 has no locus standi to contest the appeal. Permit of the petitioner was cancelled under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the aforesaid provision, there is no procedure prescribed that third party has a right to contest the appeal. It is a matter between RTA and bus operator. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. District Collector, Raigad and others, (2012) 4 SCC 407 para 60 and Kanaklata Das and others vs. Naba Kumar Das and others, (2018) 2 SCC 352 wherein it has been held that 'necessary party is one without whom, no order can be made effectively and proper party is one in whose absence effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for complete and final decision on issues involved in the proceedings.' Para 60 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra) reads as under:- '60.Under the garb of being necessary party, a person cannot be permitted to make a case as that of general public interest. A person having a remote interest cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis, as the person wants to become a party in a case, has to establish that he has a proprietary right which has been or is threatened to be violated, for the reason that a legal injury creates a remedial right in the injured person. A person cannot be heard as a party unless he answers the description of aggrieved party. (Vide: Adi Pherozshah Gandhi v. H.M.Seervai, Advocate General of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 385 ; Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 578 ; Maharaj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 2602 ; Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal & Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 33 ; and Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances Company & Ors., (2008) 10 SCC 766 ). The High Court failed to appreciate that it was a case of political rivalry. The High Court failed to appreciate that it was a case of political rivalry. The case of the appellant has not been considered in correct perspective at all.' Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court at Principal Seat in the case of Jabalpur Transport Development Co. vs. State Transport Appellate Authority, 1960 JLJ 958 . 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 supported the impugned order and placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Ashok Bhati Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior decided on 8.12.1997 in W.P.No.2042/1997 wherein it has been held as under :- 'Even if there was no provision in the Act for hearing a third party, the principles of natural justice of right of hearing shall be taken to be embodied in the provision when the action under the law was initiated at the instance of a particular party and at the later stage against such action, the matter was taken by the aggrieved party to the higher Courts. In such situation the person initiating the complaint, would certainly have interest in the matter, not for his personal gain or loss but to see that the action is not frustrated or defeated without a valid reason.' 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. In the present case, initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner in regard to cancellation of registration of buses and thereafter permit was on the complaint of respondent No.3. When no action was taken on its complaint by the competent authority, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.1262/2021 which has been disposed of with a direction to decide the complaint/representation within a period of four months. He certainly has interest to see that his complaint would reach to its logical conclusion. 7. In the case of Jabalpur Transport Development Co. (supra) the dispute is regarding timings. In that case, respondent No.3 neither operated the buses in accordance with the revised timings nor produced any stay order and in such situation his permit was cancelled. Thereafter he filed an appeal. Petitioner, who subsequently obtained a permit, applied for being impleaded as a party to the appeal and in such facts and circumstances application of the petitioner was dismissed and this Court affirmed the said order. But facts in the present case are totally different. Thereafter he filed an appeal. Petitioner, who subsequently obtained a permit, applied for being impleaded as a party to the appeal and in such facts and circumstances application of the petitioner was dismissed and this Court affirmed the said order. But facts in the present case are totally different. In the present case, on the complaint of respondent No.3, registration of buses of the petitioner and thereafter permit was cancelled. If in the subsequent proceedings before the higher forum, he is not permitted to support his case, then certainly he would be an aggrieved person. 8. In view of the aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal has not committed any illegality or perversity in allowing the application of respondent No.3. Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed being bereft of merits.