- (1.) All the aforesaid writ petitions are being decided by this common or - der as in all of them common questions of law and facts are involved. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6759/2003
(2.) This writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 29-11-2003 with the prayer that by appropriate writ, order or direction, the judgment dated 7-11-2003 (Annexure P/4) passed by the respondent No. 2 State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") by which the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the respondent Nos. 4, to 6, namely, Nirmal Kumar, Shiv Bhagwan and Satvir respectively and set aside the order dated 13-6-2000 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent No. 3 Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner rejecting the applications of the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 for renewal of the permits on the inter-State route Bhadra- Hissar via Bagla, be quashed and set aside. J'
(3.) The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows : There is an inter-State route Bhadra- Hissar via Bagla. On 9-7-1997, an agreement (Annexure P/ 1) was entered into between the State of Rajasthan and Haryana and it came to be published in the official gazette dated 15-7-1997 and by that agreement Annexure P/1, it,was agreed upon that the number of permits for the Rajasthan nominees for the rout Bhadra-Hissar via Bagla would be 4 to provide daily four return services. Thereafter, on 29-9-1999 the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 submitted applications for renewal of their permits on the route in question before the respondent No. 3 Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner, but the respondent No. 3 Regional Transport Authority through order dated 13-6-2000 (Annexure P/2) rejected their applications. The further case of the petitioner is that after rejection of the applications of the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 for renewal through order Annexure P/2 dated 13-6-2000, the respondent No. 3 Regional Transport Authority considered the fresh applications against the then vacancies existing under the agreement Annexure P/1 and through order dated 22-7-2000 (Annexure P/3) granted four permits in favour of following four persons : (1) Vijay Kumar (Petitioner in writ No. 6759/2003) (2) Mangiram (Petitioner in writ No. 1033/2004) (3) Om Prakash {Petitioner in writ No. 568/2004) (4) Radhey Shyam (Petitioner in writ No. 218/2004) The further case of the petitioner is that on 10-11-2003 he came to know that the respondent Nos. 4 to 6, whose applications for renewal were rejected by the respondent No. 3 Regional Transport Authority through order Annexure P/2 dated 13-6-2000 had preferred appeals before the respondent No. 2 Tribunal and the respondent No. 2 Tribunal through common judgment dated 7-11-2003 (Annexure P/4) allowed the appeals of the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and set aside order of the respondent No. 3 Regional Transport Authority dated 13-6-2000 (Annexure P/2}. It may be stated here that during the pendency of the appeals of the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 before the respondent No. 2 Tribunal, Mangiram and Om Prakash (Petitioners of writ Nos. 1033/04 and 568/04 respectively) in whose favour permits on the route in question were granted by the respondent No. 3 Regional Transport Authority through order Annexure P/3 dated 22-7-2000, submitted applications for impleading them as party respondents and their applications for impleadment were opposed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and the respondent No. 2 Tribunal through order dated 18-9-2003 rejected the applications of Mangiram and Om Prakash for impleading as party respondents, but they were allowed to be heard through their counsel in the appeals of the respondent Nos. 4 to 6. The further case of the petitioner is that in the appeals of the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 before the respondent No. 2 Tribunal, he was not at all heard and no notices of these appeals were ever served upon him also and in absence of that,.he had no opportunity to participate in these appeals and thus, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him before passing the impugned appellate judgment Annexure P/4 dated 7-11 -2003 by the respondent No. 2 Tribunal. Hence, this writ petition with the prayer as stated above. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned appellate judgment Annexure P/4 dated 7-11 -2003 passed by the respondent No. 2 Tribunal on various grounds and the main ground is that the applications of the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 for renewal of the permits on the route in question were rejected by the respondent No. 3 Regional Transport Authority through order Annexure P/2 dated 13-6-2000 and thereafter, the respondent No. 3 Regional Transport Authority through order dated 22-7-2000 (Annexure P/3) granted permit in favour of the petitioner for the route in question and therefore, in these circumstances, in the appeals filed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 against the rejection of their applications for renewal through order Annexure P/2, before the respondent No. 2 Tribunal, the petitioner was a necessary party to those appeals, as the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 sought renewal of the of the permits for the same route for which the petitioner Vijay Kumar and three others, namely, Mangiram, Om Prakash and Radhey Shyam (Petitioners of writ Nos. 1033/04, 568/04 and 2/8/04 respectively) were granted permits, but he was not impleaded nor any notices of these appeals were ever served upon him and thus, the impugned appellate judgment Annexure 4 dated 7-11-2003 was passed by the respondent No. 2 Tribunal in absence of the petitioner and therefore, it is not only void but illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also against the principles of natural justice as before passing it, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Hence, the impugned judgment Annexure P/4 dated 7-11 -2003 passed by the respondent No. 2 Tribunal cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed and set aside. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and their case is that since they have preferred appeals before the respondent No, 2 Tribunal against the order of rejecting their applications for renewal through order Annexure P/2 dated 13-6-2000 prior to passing of the order Annexure P/l dated 22-7-2000 granting permit in favour of the petitioner, therefore, in these circumstances, it was not incumbent upon them to implead the petitioner as one of the respondents to the appeals filed by them and therefore, the petitioner was not at all a necessary party to the appeals filed before the respondent No, 2 Tribunal. Apart from this, it was further submitted by the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 that there is no basic illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment Annexure P/4 dated 7-11-2003 passed by the respondent No. 2 Tribunal and thus, no interference is called for with the same in exercise of power under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.;