Judgment:
ORDER
S. Dasaradharama Reddy, J.
1. As these two writ petitions filed by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short the RTC) are interconnected, they are disposed of by a common order. The main writ petition is W.P. No. 5148 of 1990. The third respondent, a private bus operator, applied for stage Carriage permit on route Cuddapah to Balasingapalli on 27-9-1989. On 22-12-1989, the RTC filed objections before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Cuddapah stating that the permit cannot be granted in view of overlapping of the notified route by 18 Kms., more than permissible limit of 8 Kms., under the Schedme published in G.O.Ms. No. 309, dated 7-8-1985 covering the route Cuddapah to Kondapeta. The Regional Transport Authority passed order on 23-12-1989 rejecting the permit with one word 'rejected'. Against this order, the operator filed appeal A.P. No. 34 of 1990 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'). The RTC was, however, not impleaded in this appeal. The Tribunal held that the Regional Transport Authority did not give reasons for rejecting the application and also that no opportunity as contemplated under proviso to Section 80(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act was given to the operator and accordingly set aside the order of Regional Transport Authority. After having set aside that order, the Tribunal further directed the Regional Transport Authority to give pucca permit to the operator for the route applied for on the ground that the Motor Vehicles Inspector indicated the necessity for urgent transport facility for the village. Against this order dated 7-3-1990, the RTC has preferred this writ petition on 11-4-1990. The operator took notice on 11-4-1990 and the matter was adjourned and ultimately on 24-4-1990, the writ petition was admitted. W.P.M.P. No. 6586 of 1990 filed by the RTC seeking suspension of the impugned order, was directed to be posted after summer vacation and ultimately on 19-10-1990, W.P.M.P. was directed to be posted along with the writ petition. Meanwhile, to implement the order of the Tribunal, the Regional Transport Authority convened a Timing Conference and issued notice to the RTC. The Divisional Manager, Cuddapah, by his letter dated 10-4-1990 requested the Regional Transport Officer to adjourn the meeting by one week as the writ petition filed by the RTC against the order of the Tribunal was due to be heard by this Court. The RTC in that letter has also raised objections that the permit cannot be granted as it is hit by Scheme published in G.O. Ms. No. 309 dated 7-8-1985. However, the Regional Transport Authority by its proceedings dated 23-4-1990 granted pucca permit to the operator and also fixed certain timings for the plying of the buses by the operator. Against this order, the RTC has filed a separate writ petition No. 6720 of 1990. Pending writ petition (W.P. No. 6720 of 1990), the RTC obtained interim suspension in W.P.M.P. No. 8539 of 1990. However, on appeal by the operator, this Court in W.A. No. 655 of 1990 dated 29-5-1990 permitted the operator to ply pending disposal of the writ petition. Thus the operator has been plying the bus since May, 1990.
2. Sri Vaada Rajagopala Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the RTC, submits that:
(1) The Tribunal ought to have dismissed the appeal filed by operator who has chosen not to implead the RTC which is the affected party and in any event ought to have given notice to the RTC before allowing the appeal.
(2) The Tribunal having come to the conclusion that the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority is laconic and was without notice to the operator, ought to have decided the appeal on merits after going through the record of RTA.
3. The learned Government Pleader produced records. The first contention of Sri Vaada Rajagopala Reddy is that as the RTC has filed objections before the Regional Transport Authority stating that the permit applied for is hit by G.O. Ms. No. 308, the operator ought to has impleaded the RTC in the appeal before the Tribunal. Sri K.N. Jwala, learned Counsel for the operator, says that there is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act or in the rules to the effect that the RTC must be impleaded as a party in the appeal before the Tribunal.
4. Under Rule 6(c) of the A.P. State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1989, 'the appellant has to implead in addition to 'successful parties', the original authority'. In B. Sambasiva Rao v. R.T.A., Guntur, : AIR1981AP221 this Court held that an objector who prevented the grant of permit to an applicant and who himself could not get permit cannot be said to be 'successful party'. The questions whether the RTC, which opposes the grant of a permit on the route on which it was plying its buses on the ground that the grant of permit will be hit by the Scheme, which is law under Section 100 of the Motor vehicles Act, and whether the principle of the decision in B. Sambasiva Rao v. R.T.A., Guntur, : AIR1981AP221 is against the contention of the RTC, need not be decided in this writ petition since the record does not disclose that the copy of objections filed by the RTC has been served on the operator and the order rejecting the permit does not also refer to any objections by the RTC. However, the second limb of submission made by Sri Vaada Rajagopala Reddy has merit. The record discloses that the RTC has filed objections on 22-12-1989 and the Office of the Regional Transport Authority also prepared a draft note proposing to reject the permit on the ground that it is hit by the Scheme. In view of this, the State Representative before the Tribunal ought to have brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the RTC is affected party. It is well settled that the appellate authority is not competent to give a decision against any party adversely unless the affected party is impleaded as a respondent to the appeal. Thus though it cannot be said that appeal is not maintainable for not impleading the RTC, the Tribunal ought to have given notice to the RTC before deciding the appeal.
5. As regards second contention, no doubt the order of the Regional Transport Authority is laconic. The operator has also raised a plea that no notice was given to him by the Regional Transport Authority before the order was passed. The record, however, shows that notice was despatched to the operator on 15-12-1989 asking him to be present on 23-12-1989. However, no acknowledgment is available in the record produced by the RTC. Even assuming that no notice has been given to the operator, the Tribunal is not justified in straightaway allowing the appeal and directing grant of permit. The Tribunal ought to have examined whether the permit applied for is hit by any of the approved Schemes, which information will be available with the State Representative appearing for the Regional Transport Authority. No counter has been filed by the operator in W.P. No. 5148 of 1990. However, Sri K.N. Jwala, learned Counsel for the operator, contends that the permit is not hit by G.O. Ms. No. 309 as it has been subsequently modified. He filed a copy of the A.P. Gazette Part II-Extraordinary dated 12-5-1989 containing various modifications of several Schemes. He particularly relies on items 11 and 12 of the Note to the approved scheme at pages 68 and 74, as per which the modified route is Cuddapah-Sugar Factory (via) Ramavepally, Chennur and Kondapet, and accordingly he contends that the permit is not hit by any of the Schemes. Sri Vaada Rajagopala Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the RTC, on the other hand submits that item 12 mentioned at page 74 is modification of the Scheme published in G.O.Ms. No. 237 as indicated in item No. 2 and has nothing to do with G.O.Ms. No. 309 and that note 3 to item 11 at page 68 does not make any change regarding the permissible overlapping. I need not go into this controversy. It is open to the third respondent to raise this plea before the Tribunal which shall decide it in accordance with law after hearing the RTC and the State Representative.
6. Sri K.N. Jwala, learned Counsel for the operator, vehemently pleaded that the matter may be sent back to the Regional Transport Authority for fresh consideration. I do not agree with his contention. Sending back the matter to Regional Transport Authority with the consequent appeal or revision by either party will only protract the proceedings without any purpose. The matter is already five years old. Hence I think in the interests of Justice, it is better that the matter is decided by the Tribunal and that too within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. As already seen, pending writ petition, the operator has been permitted to ply pursuant to the permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority from 23-4-1990 for nearly 5 years. It is represented by Sri K.N. Jwala, that as the operator has been plying the bus since five years, he may be permitted to ply till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. Sri Vaada Rajagopala Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the RTC, vehemently opposes this saying that as the operator has already got the benefit of plying for nearly 5 years, he cannot be permitted to ply unless the Tribunal allows the appeal. I agree with Mr. Vaada Rajagopala Reddy. Alternatively, Mr. K.N. Jwala submitted that operator may be permitted to ply atleast till 22-4-1995 by when his permit expires. I think this request is reasonable. As the operator has been plying for nearly 5 years, he may be permitted to ply till 22-4-1995. It is made clear that after that date, he will be entitled to ply only as and when Tribunal allows the appeal.
8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.
9. Consequently, Writ Petition No. 6720 of 1990 is also allowed and the order granting permit to the operator is quashed. No costs.