Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J. - (1.) The applicant presented this appeal with an application for leave to appeal as the applicant was not a party in the writ petition. This appeal is being preferred against the order dated 14th August, 1992. On 14th August. 1992, an interim order of injunction was passed by the learned Trial Judge. It is stated that in view of the said interim order the Regional Transport authority will convert the temporary permits into permanent permit in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules framed thereunder. It was alleged that originally some temporary permits were granted in respect of some vehicles and that the subsequent permit was issued in respect of some of the writ petitioners, wherein a new vehicle was substituted in place of the old vehicle and that it was alleged that such issue of temporary permit was in contravention of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and further it was alleged that the right conferred to file objection and representation against such grant of permanent permit under the provisions of West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 has been taken away. The question is whether leave could be granted to prefer an appeal against the order in question which does not directly effect the interest of the applicant. The applicant No. 1 is an Association of Minibus owners in Siliguri District which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act represented by its Joint Secretary As his Kumar Roy. The second petitioner is Ashis Kumar Roy who is the Secretary of the applicant No. 1. Applicant No. 3 is another association known as Siliguri Dooars Minibus Owners' Association and the applicant No. 4 is Secretary of the applicant No. 3. Before any heave could be granted to prefer an appeal against the said order, it is also necessary to examine who there the applicants have any locus standi to file this application and to prefer an appeal as the persons aggrieved and that whether the association can maintain such an appeal.
(2.) The applicants' case is that because of the order passed by this court the Regional Transport Authority issued permit in contravention of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 and the rules framed thereunder. In order to lest this proposition whether the applicants have locus standi, the test is whether the applicants could file a writ application against the proposed action of the Regional Transport Authority and that if the applicants have a locus standi to rile writ application, in that event, it must be held that the appellant can be said to be aggrieved by the order in question and can prefer this appeal being persons seriously affected by the order.
(3.) Appeal is a statutory right. But a stranger can prefer an appeal under certain conditions. In this connection, reference may be made to the observation of Lindley, L. J. In re Securities Insurance Company. (1894) 2 CH 410 wherein it was observed that "I understand the practice to be perfectly well settled that a person who is a party can appeal (of course within the proper time) without any leave and that a person who without being a party is either bound by the order or is aggrieved by it or it pre-judicially affected by it cannot appeal without leave. It does not require much to obtain leave. If a person alleging himself to be aggrieved by an order, can make out even a prima facie case why he should have leave he will get it, but without leave he is not entitled to appeal". This principle is followed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Aman Singh reported in AIR 1974 SC 994. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Jatan Kumar Golcha v. Golcha Property reported in AIR 1971 SC 734.;