ALL KASHMIR MINI BUS PASSENGERS TRANSPORT FEDERATION Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In an attempt to invalidate the service licences granted under Rule 127 of the Motor Vehicles Rules 1991. All Kashmir Mini Bus Passenger Transport Federation, the plaintiff-petitioner has initiated a civil action through a civil suit. Amazingly he has omitted to implead Shahanshah Transport Service Srinagar notwithstanding the fact that he too is a licence holder which fact is specifically pleaded in the plaint. So much so the cause of action in the suit is attributed to the grant of the licence. On the facts so pleaded by the plaintiff the said Shahanshah Transport Service laid a motion before the Ld. Additional District Judge Srinagar for his impleadment which came to be allowed impleading the Transport Service as defendant in the suit hereinafter referred to as Respondent No. 6. This order dated 3/5/2000 is impugned in this revision petition.

(2.) Placing reliance on Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others (1992) 2 SCC 524 and Razia Begum versus Anwar Begum AIR 1958 SC 886, it is contended by LC for the petitioner that unless the Respondent No. 6 shows a direct and legal interest in the litigation, His impleadment is not permissible. It calls for a mention that the LC has not gone to other observations of the Apex Court which sufficiently justify the impleadment of Respondent No. 6. Be that as it may since a contention has been raised it has become necessary to deal with it.

(3.) Whether the Respondent No. 6 has a direct interest in the matter needs to be appreciated in the light of the factual matrix of this case. Admitted position is that the Respondent No. 6 has a licence to his credit granted under Rule 127 of 1991 Rules. This licence confers certain rights on him. It is sought to be cancelled and if the relief prayed for by the plaintiff in the suit is granted it shall render the licence of Respondent No. 6 ineffective and inoperative. He will lose right to attach the vehicles of the transporters with his Transport service and virtually cannot operate although such right appears to have accrued to him by grant of licence accorded by a statutory authority. Obviously, it is not possible for the Court to settle the issues effectively and completely unless the Respondent No. 6 is not joined in the suit as a defendant. Being a potential beneficiary of the license impugned through the suit the discretion exercised by the Court under Sub Rule(2) of Rule 10 Order I of Civil Procedure Code was warranted which has been rightly exercised. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that omission to exercise the jurisdiction would have caused failure of justice.