The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.19849 of 2009 Dated 12th July, 2010 Between: K.Veera Prasad and another. …Petitioner And Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Anantapur Region, Anantapur District and 2 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Raju for Mrs.SV.Indira Counsel for the respondents: Smt.WVS.Rajeswari, SC for APSRTC The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings No.02/122 [37]2008 RM “A”, dated 28- 07-2009, issued by respondent No.1. I have heard Sri Raju, learned Counsel representing Smt.S.V.Indira, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Smt.W.V.S.Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC, representing the respondents. Petitioner No.1 was granted license to run water kiosk at the open space earmarked for this purpose at Gooty Bus Station, for a period of five years from 01-01- 2009 to 31-12-2013. Similarly, petitioner No.2 was granted license to sell soda, cool drinks and sealed mineral water at the same bus station, for a period of six years from 11-10-2004 to 10-10-2010. In the present Writ Petition, the petitioners have questioned proceedings, dated 28-07-2009, of respondent No.1, by which one A.Ashok, licensee of canteen of Gooti Bus Station, was accorded permission to sell mineral water packed in bottles of Companies such as Bisleri, Kinley, Aquafin etc., on payment of additional license fee of Rs.1,000/- per month. According to the petitioners, when they were given exclusive privilege to sell water, the action of respondent No.1 in permitting another person to sell water in his canteen is contrary to Circular No.12/2003-OPD[C], dated 13-02-2003. From a perusal of the record, this Court finds that the Writ Petition suffers from serious defect of non-joinder of a necessary and proper party to the Writ Petition. As noted above, the action impugned in the Writ Petition is permitting one Mr.A.Ashok to sell water. Any relief granted in favour of the petitioners in this Writ Petition would seriously affect the interests of the said A.Ashok. Therefore, the said person is not only necessary but also proper party to this Writ Petition. The petitioners have not assigned any reasons whatsoever for not impleading the said A.Ashok as a party to this Writ Petition. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed without going into the merits of the case. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.25879 of 2009, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 12th July, 2010 lur