A. SOMASHEKAR Vs. SECRETARY AND SRI YESHAWANTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a holder of a stage carriage permit valid up to 01.01.2014 having identical common route with that of respondent No. 2 between Mahadevapura to Arakere and back. Petitioner has questioned in R.P. No. 1595/2012, an order of renewal of permit of respondent No. 2, before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (for short 'the Tribunal'). In the said revision petition, an interim order of stay of the renewal of permit of the 2nd respondent was passed on 01.01.2013. Respondent No. 2 having filed an application on 27.02.2013 for grant of temporary permit, the 1st respondent issued an endorsement dated 28.02.2013, declining to grant the temporary permit on the ground that the order of stay passed in R.P. No. 1595/2012 on 01.01.2013 is in operation. Respondent No. 2 having filed another application on 19.03.2013 for grant of temporary permit, the 1st respondent issued an endorsement of rejection on 20.03.2013. Assailing the endorsements as at Annexures -A and B, the 2nd respondent has filed Appeal Nos. 532/2013 and 709/2013 in the Tribunal. Applications filed by the petitioner under Rule 90 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, to permit him to come on record as respondent No. 2 in the said appeals having been opposed the appellant and the Tribunal having rejected the applications, by identical but separate orders passed on 10.07.2013, vide Annexures -E and F, assailing the orders, these writ petitions have been filed. Sri B.R. Sundararaja Gupta, learned advocate for the petitioner, by placing the reliance on the decision in the case of D.L. Sadashiva Reddy Vs. P. Lala Sheriff and Others, AIR 1999 Kant 5 , firstly contended that the rejection of the applications for impleading in the appeals is unjust and illegal. Secondly, the Tribunal has not considered the applications in accordance with law. He submitted that the petitioner would be affected, if, a temporary permit were to be ultimately granted in favour of the respondent No. 2 herein. Thirdly, the rejection of the applications has occasioned the failure of justice.

(2.) SRI Ajit Shetty, learned advocate for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the applications, more particularly in view of the petitioner having questioned the renewal of permit No. 1/2004 -05 of the 2nd respondent in R.P. No. 1595/2012, which is also devoid of any merit.

(3.) FROM the record it is clear that the resolution passed by the RTA, Mandya, in subject No. 77/96 -97 dated 03.12.2011 and 25.02.2012 renewing the stage carriage permit bearing No. 1/2004 -05 for a period of five years has been questioned in the Tribunal in R.P. No. 1595/2012 and an interim order has been passed, on account of which the permit holder -Y. Yashavanth, has not been operating the service. First respondent rejected the prayer of the 2nd respondent for grant of temporary permit, by issuing the endorsements, as at Annexures -A and B, on account of the pendency of R.P. No. 1595/2012 and the operation of the interim order passed therein on 01.01.2013. In the circumstances, the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is a necessary and proper party in appeal Nos. 532 and 709 of 2013?