V SHYAMALA Vs. L KALAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent herein filed W.P. No. 8626 of 1991 against an order dated 19/06/1991 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in A. P. No. 208 of 1991 dismissing the appeal. In that writ petition the appellant herein filed W.P.M.P. No. 11685 of 1991 to implead her as party-respondent. The learned single Judge dismissed that petition. Aggrieved by that order this writ appeal is preferred.

(2.) It would be necessary to refer to some of the relevant facts for the purpose of appreciating the contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The first respondent herein applied for the grant of a permit on the route Vempalli Cross to Gandi Via Kummarampalli and Veeranna Gattupalli. The route is of a length of 7.5 Kms. The application of the first respondent was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority, Cuddapah on Feb. 21, 1991. Thereafter, the appellant herein applied for the grant of permit in respect of the very same route. Her application also was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority, Cudapah on 20/04/1991. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was allowed on 28/05/1991 and the Regional Transport Authority was directed to grant permit in her favour. Pursuant to the direction, it is stated that the appellant was granted permit. While so, on 5/06/1991 the first respondent herein filed appeal with an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal against the order dated Feb. 21, 1991 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Cuddapah. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal condoned the delay and took the appeal on file. However, by its order dated 19/06/1991 the appeal was dismissed holding that it would not be economically viable to ply another bus on the route and therefore it would not be proper to direct the Regional Transport Authority to grant a second permit on the route which is only of a length of 7-5 Kms. Aggrieved by that order the first respondent herein filed the writ petition which is still pending in this court. In that writ petition, the appellant herein filed a miscellaneous petition for impleading her as a party-respondent.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is a proper party if not a necessary party, who has a right to be heard in the writ proceedings and to make a representation before the transport authorities before any permit is granted in favour of the first respondent. The learned counsel has drawn our attention to Rule 16 of the writ proceedings rules made under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, which reads as follows: