JUDGMENT :

1. These applications have been filed for addition of the applicants as party respondents in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed for a direction on the State Transport Authority to issue a countersigned letter renewing the permit of the petitioner by the Jharkhand State Transport Authority to ply in a certain route. The applicants pray to be added as parties on the contention that the route of the petitioner has a common alignment of 135 kms with the route used by the applicants to ply their vehicles.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants dispute the legality of the permit issued by the Jharkhand STA as being violative of section 88 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides for validation of permits for use outside the region in which the permits are granted. Counsel further submit that the applicants are directly affected by the petitioner plying its vehicles on the concerned route.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner opposes the applications for impleadment on the ground that the starting times of the journeys of the petitioner and the applicants are different and that the applicants have come at a belated stage as the permit was granted to the petitioner in 2006. Counsel also relies on a judgment of a learned Judge, as his Lordship then was, dated 8.12.2009 passed in W.P. No. 903 of 2009 (Ram Pujan vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.). Counsel further places a judgment by another learned Judge, as his Lordship then was, dated 3.02.2012 in W.P. No. 19510(W) of 2011 where the same issue was considered and the Court came to a similar finding. A challenge to the judgment dated 3.02.2012 was dismissed for default on 12.06.2014.

4. The present applications are for addition of parties simpliciter. The only question which the Court must therefore consider is whether the applicants are necessary or proper parties and whether effective adjudication of the issues in the writ petition can be made in the absence of the applicants. Although counsel have argued on the factual aspects of the matter, namely, whether the routes coincide and other areas of potential conflict, the only issue is whether the applicants have established a right to be heard in the writ petition.

5. A four-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar; AIR 1963 SC 786 explained the concept of a necessary and proper party to mean all persons who are directly affected by an act or a proceeding. The Supreme Court summarised thus: in relation to a writ of certiorari, not only the authority whose order is sought to be quashed but all parties in whose favour the said order is issued may be categorised as necessary parties. Under Order I Rule 9 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a necessary party is a person ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree can be passed. A proper party is one whose presence would enable the court to completely and effectively adjudicate upon all the matters in dispute in the suit though he need not be a person in favour or against who the decree is to be made.

6. The facts urged on behalf of the parties indicate that the competing routes indeed coincide for a stretch of 135 kms approximately. This fact is substantiated from the documents on record. Hence, the permit granted in favour of the petitioner has admittedly resulted in a substantial stretch of the route being used by both the petitioner and the applicants as operators of their respective vehicles. There is little doubt therefore that the applicants are impacted by the grant of permit to the petitioner and accordingly by the relief prayed for in the writ petition.

7. The decisions shown to the Court further assist the applicants in their case for impleadment. In a full-Bench decision of this Court in Prabhat Pan vs. The State of West Bengal, AIR 2015 Cal 112 (FB), it was held that if there is a complaint made against a grant of permit said