NAGABHUSHANAM Vs. ANKAM ANKAIAH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ appeals (Writ Appeals 127 and 139 of 1966) arise out of an order in Writ Petition No. 919 of 1966 made under Article 226 of the Constitution by our learned brother Gopal Rao Ekbote, J., quashing the orders passed by the State Transport Authority in A. 43/A1/65 in item 3 dated 9-3-66 and the order passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G. O. Rt. 2079 Home (Transport II) Department dated 20th May, 1966 confirming the first cited order of the State Transport Authority. Writ Appeal 127/66 is filed by the fourth respondent in W. P. 919/66 and W. A. No. 139/66 and W. P. 1311/66 are filed by one Ankayya, the petitioner in W. P. 919/66.

(2.) The facts leading to the two writ appeals and writ petition 1311/66 are these: Applications were called for the grant of two pucca stage carriage permits on the route Mangalagiri to Vijayawada and there were 27 applicants for the two permits. Among them are the two appellants and Gunaraju, the fourth respondent in W.P. 1311/66. The Regional Transport Authority, Guntur at its meeting held on 7-1-65 taking into consideration the marks obtained by each of the applicants and having regard to Rule 212 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964, hereinafter called the rules granted one permit to Ankayya, the appellant in W. A. 139/66 and the second to Gunaraju, the fourth respondent in W.P. 1311/66.Five of the unsuccessful applicants including the appellant in W A. 127/66 preferred appeals to the appellate authority against the order of the R. T. A. granting permits to the aforesaid two persons and the appellate authority set aside the order of the R. T. A granting one of the two Permits to Ankayya the appellant in W. A 139/66 and this permit was given to Nagabhushanam, the appellant in W. A. 127/66 subject to certain conditions The reason for setting aside the order of the R. T. A giving one of the two permits to Ankayya is that the permit given to him was not in accordance with Rule 212 as his history sheet contained more than six entries relating to the offences committed during the 24 months preceding the date of the order of the Regional Transport Authority. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, Ankayya preferred a revision to the Government. The Government in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction upheld the order of the appellate authority in so far as it related to the grant of the permit to Nagabhushanam and also confirmed the grant made to Gunaraju, the fourth respondent in W.P. 1311/66. It is then that Ankayya sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution and prayed for quashing of the orders of the appellate authority and the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Before our learned brother Gopal Rao Ekbote, J. It was argued by the appellant in W.A. 139/66 that the history sheet referred to Rule 212(1)(iii)(2) relates to the stage carriage permits and that the appellate authority committed an error in considering or taking into account the history sheet of the public carrier service of the petitioner with the result that the appellate authority fell into an error on the construction and the applicability of the impugned rule while granting permits to stage carriages. The learned Judge after an elaborate discussion of this question held that:-

(3.) The fourth respondent in the writ petition (appellant in W. A. 127/66) before our learned brother raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner failed to implead Gunaraju to whom the other permit was granted as a necessary party to the writ petition and therefore the petition should fail on that ground alone. This objection was overruled by the learned Judge on the ground that