ORDER
Lakshmana Rao, J.
1. The first respondent herein filed W.P. No. 8626 of
1991 against an order dated June 19, 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 rejecated by the Regional Transport Authority, Cudapah on April 20, 1991. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was allowed on May 28, 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 June 5, 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 June 19, 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:
“16. (a) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without any application and on such terms as may appear to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined to struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined or whose presence may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and to settle all the questions in the petition be added.
(b) At the hearing of the petition or application any person who desires to be heard in opposition to the petition or application and appears to the Court to be a proper person to be heard may be heard, subject to such conditions as to costs as the court may deem fit to impose.”
It may be noticed that the writ petition has been filed against an order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The appellant herein was not a party to those proceedings. In those circumstances, we are unable to understand how the appellant would be a proper party to the writ proceedings arising out of the proceedings to which she was not a party. Apart from that, even having regard to the facts of the case, we are not inclined to hold that the appellant herein has any right to be heard in the writ petition which is filed by the first respondent against the order passed in appeal by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, even an existing operator has no right to claim that he shall be heard at the time of consideration of application for the grant of permit. In such circumstances, we are unable to understand how the appellant herein can be considered to be either a necessary or proper party to the writ proceedings arising out of an
order passed by the Appellate Authority in an appeal to which she was not a party.
4. We do not, therefore, see any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.