- (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 20/05/1966 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 arc 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 :-- "There is no indication anywhere in the rules that the history sheet has to be maintained in a combined way, nor there is any direction that only one history sheet has to be maintained for all the vehicles for which separate permits are held, whether the vehicles for which the permit is so held belongs to the category of public carrier or stage carriage or any other type. . . . I am therefore satisfied that the expression "history sheet" used in Rule 212 means only the history sheet relating to the stage carriage which alone could be considered at the time when the question of grant of permit is before the R. T. A."
(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 "he might have been made a party to the revision before the Government, but that does not make him a necessary party in so far as the permit in question In this writ petition is concerned". The learned Judge also took the view that the dispute in regard to this permit was only between the petitioner and the fourth respondent before him and in that view Gunaraju cannot be called a necessary party to the writ petition. Against the order in W. P. 919/66, a writ appeal (W. A. No. 127/661 is filed by the fourth respondent the aggrieved party. The successful party, the petitioner (Ankayya) also filed Writ Appeal No. 139 of 1966 on the ground that the learned Judge instead of restoring the permit granted to him by the State Transport Authority remitted the matter back for consideration afresh according to law by the appellate authority.;