Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1995 DIGILAW 164 (CAL)

DILIP KUMAR MISHRA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

1995-05-10

ALTAMAS KABIR

body1995
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. ( 1 ) THE Court: This writ petition has been moved upon notice to the respondents and Mr. Rameswar Bhattacharjee, ld. Advocate, appears for the respondents. ( 2 ) HAVING regard to the nature of the reliefs sought for and the facts and circumstances of the case, this application can be disposed of even at this stage without filing of affidavits. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, in terms of the arrangement between the State of West Bengal and the State of Orissa regarding certain inter-state bus routes, including a routes from Paradip to Calcutta, the petitioner applied for a permit for the Calcutta-Paradip route, indicated in the Orissa Gazette on 1st May, 1986, being Annexure 'b' to the writ petition. It appears that there was only one vacancy on the said route and the petitioner applied for the said route but his application was not entertained by the State Transport Authority, West Bengal. ( 4 ) THE petitioner, therefore, had no other alternative but to have a writ petition before this court which was disposed of on 21st December, 1992, with a direction upon the authorities to consider the petitioner's application for grant of permit for the aforesaid route and to dispose of the same within one month from the date of filing of a fresh application, in accordance with law, after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing. ( 5 ) PURSUANT to the said direction, the petitioner filed a fresh application, but the same was refused on the ground that the route in question had already been offered to the CSTC. ( 6 ) IT appears that, thereafter, the CSTC informed the State Transport Authority by its letter dated 5th April, 1993, that it was not interested in operating the bus service from Calcutta to Paradip. The petitioner thereupon once again moved this court by way of another writ petition in which an interim order was passed directing the writ petitioner to apply afresh for grant of permanent permit for the said route, since the CSTC had declined to ply on the said route. The matter came up for final hearing on 24th January, 1995. The petitioner thereupon once again moved this court by way of another writ petition in which an interim order was passed directing the writ petitioner to apply afresh for grant of permanent permit for the said route, since the CSTC had declined to ply on the said route. The matter came up for final hearing on 24th January, 1995. At the time of hearing it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that a decision had been taken on 5/7th October, 1994, pursuant to the directions given by this Court, to grant temporary permit to the petitioner for the said route and the petitioner was informed that it had been decided to advertise the route and, accordingly, the petitioner's prayer for permanent permit was rejected. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was never informed that the State Transport Authority had decided to issue a temporary permit in his favour. ( 7 ) APPEARING in support of the writ petition, Mr. Aurobindo Chatterjee firstly submitted that the impugned decision, being Annexure 'b' to the writ petition, was taken without giving the petitioner any opportunity of being hoard. Secondly, he submitted that the ground for rejection of the petitioner's prayer for grant of permanent permit not available to the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. ( 8 ) IN this connection, Mr. Chatterjee draws my attention to Sec. 80 of the said Act, Sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the said Act provides as follows :" (2) A Regional Transport Authority shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under Act : provided that the Regional Transport Authority may summarily refuse the application if the grant of any permit in accordance with the application would have the effect of increasing the number of stage carriages as fixed and specified in a notification in the Official Gazette under clause (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section 71 or of Contract Carriages as fixed and specified in a notification in the Official Gazette under clause (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section 74". ( 9 ) IT has also been provided in the Act that where a Regional Transport Authority refuses an application for the grant of a permit of any kind under this Act, it shall give to the applicant in writing its reasons for the refusal of the same and an opportunity of hearing in the matter. ( 10 ) ON the aforesaid grounds, Mr. Chatterjee urged that the impugned order of the STA is liable to be quashed and the STA should be directed to grant permanent permit in favour of the petitioner. ( 11 ) OPPOSING the application on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Bhattacharjee submitted that, although, under section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the STA concerned is not empowered ordinarily to refuse grant of permanent permit on an application being made therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, when there was only one vacancy the State Transport Authority was justified in refusing to grant a permanent permit to the petitioner at this stage on the ground that the vacancy should be filled up by advertisement. ( 12 ) MR. Bhattachrjee submitted that this application is not maintainable since the petitioner's claim was not rejected outright but would be considered along with others after publication of the advertisement. Mr. Bhattacharjee further submitted that in order to provide transport service on the route during the pendency of the matter, the STA has decided to grant a temporary permit to the petitioner for plying his vehicle on the said route. ( 13 ) HAVING considered the submissions on behalf of the respective parties, I do not find that the impugned decision of the State Transport Authority is totally unjustified. It is no doubt true that the petitioner has by filing several writ petitions been ventilating his right to ply his vehicle on the route in question which has been kept unoperational by the concerned authorities for all these years. It is also no doubt true that the petitioner has been pursuing the matter and has prayed for an order upon the STA to grant him permanent permit on route in question. Had there been more than one vacancy in the route in question, the decision impugned could have been interfered with, having regard to the decision of the Supreme. It is also no doubt true that the petitioner has been pursuing the matter and has prayed for an order upon the STA to grant him permanent permit on route in question. Had there been more than one vacancy in the route in question, the decision impugned could have been interfered with, having regard to the decision of the Supreme. Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1992 SC at Page 443. However, since there is only one vacancy, there is no reason why in keeping with the equality clause in the Constitution, opportunity should not be given to other intending operators also for making application for the route in question for grant of permanent permit. The State Transport Authority, in my view, has taken a bow fide stand in the matter. ( 14 ) ACCORDINGLY, I see no reason to interfere in this writ petition. The writ petitioner will be at liberty to place his vehicle on the route on the basis of the temporary permit that may be granted to him. It is, however, made clear that the authorities concerned should consider and dispose of the question involving grant of permanent permit at an early date but positively within a period of two months from date by passing a reasoned order, after giving the petitioner and any other applicant a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and, in the event, the matter is not finally disposed of within the aforesaid period, the authorities will continue with the existing arrangement till the permanent vacancy is filled up. Although, an offer letter was issued on 27. 1. 1995 in favour of the petitioner, it appears that till date the petitioner has not placed his vehicle in the said route in terms of the said offer letter. The petitioner will be entitled to place his vehicle on the basis of the temporary offer letter, which is directed to be extended -by the authorities within a fortnight from the date of communication of this order. The writ application is disposed of as above without any order as to costs. All parties shall act on a signed copy of the operative part of this order on the usual undertaking. Application disposed of.