:1: :1: :1: srp. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 548 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8260 OF 2006. WRIT PETITION NO. 8260 OF 2006. WRIT PETITION NO. 8260 OF 2006. The Mahabaleshwar Stanik Taxi Vyavsayik Sanghatana. ..Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. --- Mr. Uday Warunjikar for Applicant. Mr. V. Masurkar, G.P. for the State. CORAM: S. B. MHASE & CORAM: S. B. MHASE & CORAM: S. B. MHASE & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. DATE: February 13, 2009. DATE: February 13, 2009. DATE: February 13, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. By this civil application, the petitioner has made a prayer to direct the respondent - authorities to prevent private tourist taxis from acting as a Stage-Carrier during the pencdency of the writ petition in Mahabaleshwar Region. The prayer (b) is for expeditious hearing of the writ petition. 2. In the main petition, the petitioner has prayed in prayer clause (b) to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents herein to take further necessary action within the framework of Motor Vehicles Act preventing use :2: :2: :2: of the tourist vehicle as Stage-Carrier instead of contract carrier at Panchagani Mahabaleshwar Region. We find this prayer in the main petition is the same prayer as made in the present civil application. Thereby by way of an interim relief the petitioner is seeking the final relief which as a law cannot be granted. . Apart from this, the issue as to whether the tourist vehicles are being used as a Stage-Carrier or not is an issue of fact to be ascertained by authorities. The Authorities have filed affidavit stating that till this date they have not received any complaint of such violation by the tourist vehciles and there is no data to that effect with them. The petitioners have not placed any data before us or before the Authorities to the effect that the tourist taxis are being used as Stage-Carriers. Therefore in the absence of the data, it will be inappropriate on our part to issue any directions to the respondent authorities. 2. Apart from this, the Tourist taxi licence-holders are not made party to this petition. They are necessary party because if the order is passed in any way, it is the tourist taxi licence holders who will be affected. Therefore any Union or Organisation of the Tourist Taxi Licence-holders at Mahabaleshwar should have been joined as party to the petition and/or if there is no such organisation working then at least in :3: :3: :3: representative capacity, from Mahabaleshwar region, 5/6 taxi licence-holders could have been impleaded in the representative capacity as party respondent. This was necessary because the grievance of all the tourist taxi licence holders could have been placed on record and could have been heard and they could have opposed the petition. For all these reasons we are not inclined to grant prayer clause (a). It is hereby rejected. 3. So far as the prayer clause (b) is concerned, for the reasons stated above and for the reason that no data of injustice is available, we find that there is no necessity to expedite the hearing of the petition. That prayer is also rejected. 4. Civil Application stands disposed of. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)