Varma, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is directed against an order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P. declining to implead the petitioner in a Revision.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the material facts are these :- By resolution dated 6/7-7-1967, the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as the Transport Authority) increased the strength of the Saharanpur-Gangoh-Jalabad Route from 45 to 90 stage carriages. In consequence of the increase in strength the Transport Authority invited applications for the grant of permanent permits on the aforesaid route. In response the petitioner as well as some others made applications. The applications were published in the U.P. Gazette. The existing operators felt aggrieved by the increase in strength and they preferred a Revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal U.P. (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). The revision was allowed and the case was remanded to the Transport Authority. The Transport Authority refixed the strength increasing it from 45 to 60. Against the aforesaid order increasing the strength from 45 to 60 the respondents Nos. 2 and 3, two of existing operators preferred a Revision before the Tribunal under Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The applications filed by the petitioner and others for the grant of permanent permits in consequence of the increase in strength have been pending consideration before the Transport Authority. While the aforesaid Revision was pending, the petitioner moved an application before the Tribunal for being impleaded as an opposite party to it. It was averred in this application that inasmuch as the petitioner's application for the grant of stage marriage permit was pending consideration he would be prejudicially affected if as a result of the orders passed in the said Revision by the Tribunal. The sanctioned increased strength is reduced. The above application has been dismissed by the Tribunal by its order dated 24-8-73. The Tribunal has rejected the application for impleadment on the ground that as a mere applicant for permit before the Transport Authority, the petitioner can claim no such interest which may require his impleadment is the Revision".
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is erroneous in law, having been passed by the Tribunal on a patent misapprehension of the true legal position, as regards right or interest of the petitioner. Learned counsel placed considerable reliance on the second proviso to Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act and on its basis urged that the petitioner would be inevitably adversely affected if the Revision is allowed and the order of the Transport Authority sanctioning increase in the strength is set aside. Learned Standing counsel on the other hand submitted that the view of the Tribunal was correct in law. He argued that the petitioner's right to apply for permit would arise only if there was an increase in the strength. Learned Standing counsel submitted that the petitioner had only contingent right to apply for a permit, and consequently, he could not claim to be impleaded in the revision as a matter of right.;