Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 143 (CAL)

Rabindra Nath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal

1999-04-05

ALTAMAS KABIR

body1999
JUDGMENT The petitioner claims to be the holder of a permanent stage carriage permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority. Nadia, in respect of the route Krishnagar to Ranaghat. According to the petitioner, he has been plying his vehicle on the said route for a considerable length of time on the basis of the said permit. 2. The petitioner’s grievance is that notices were published by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Nadia, in local newspapers on 12th February, 1999, inviting applications for grant of stage carriage/contract carriage permits in respect of different routes in the District of Nadia as well as Murshidabad. According to the petitioner, the said notices had been issued unlawfully without complying with the provisions of Sections 69, 71 and 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 103 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. 3. It is the categorical grievance of the petitioner that the routes in question have not all been approved and were not formulated by the State Government under Section 68(3)(ca) of the aforesaid act and that since the major portion of the routes in question lay within the District of Murshidabad, the Regional Transport Authority Nadia, has no jurisdiction to invite applications for grant of stage carriage/contract carriage permits having regard to the provisions of Section 69 of the aforesaid Act which provides that every application for a permit shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles provided that if it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles in two or more regions lying within the same State the application shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the major portion of the proposed route or area lies, and in case the portion of the proposed route or area in each of the regions is approximately, equal then to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to keep the vehicle or vehicle. 4. Appearing in support of the writ petition, Mr. A.P. Sircar, learned Advocate, also added that this Court had passed an interim order restraining the concerned authorities from issuing permits on the route for which applications had been invited by the Regional Transport Authority, Nadia. 4. Appearing in support of the writ petition, Mr. A.P. Sircar, learned Advocate, also added that this Court had passed an interim order restraining the concerned authorities from issuing permits on the route for which applications had been invited by the Regional Transport Authority, Nadia. Reference was also made to an order passed by me on 18th August, 1988, in W.P. No. 10756(W) of 1988, whereby I had disposed of the writ application with a direction upon the respondents concerned not to grant any permit in respect of the proposed routes unless the same had been duly approved under the provisions of Section 68(3)(ca) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 5. Mr. Sircar then submitted that the Regional Transport Authority, Nadia, was not empowered by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to issue notices inviting applications for grant of stage carriage/contract carriage permits and that the said respondent had, in fact, exceeded his authority in acting beyond the powers conferred on him by the statute. 6. In support of his said submissions, Mr. Sircar referred to a Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of (1) Jhikira-Howrah Bus Syndicate & Ors. v. Regional Transport Authority, Howrah & Ors. reported in 1996(1) CLJ page 397, wherein it was reiterated that the Regional Transport Authority, being a statutory authority and having derived its powers under the statute, must act within the four corners thereof. 7. Opposing the writ application, Mr. N.I. Khan, learned Advocate, firstly urged that is had been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (2) Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India reported in AIR 1992 SC page 443, a comparative reading of the provisions of the 1988 Act and the 1939 Act makes it clear that the procedure for grant of permit under the new Act has been liberalized to such an extent that an intending operator can get a permit for the asking irrespective of the number of operators already in the field. It was observed further that more operators mean healthy competition and an efficient transport system and that as the State has chosen not to impose any restriction under Article 19(6) of the Constitution in respect of motor transport business and has left the citizens to enjoy their right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution there can be no cause for complaint by the existing operators. 8. Mr. 8. Mr. Khas urged that in view of the above, it was not open to the petitioner as an existing operator to make any objection to the grant of further stage carriage/contract carriage permits on the route is question. 9. Of course, it has been very fairly conceded by Mr. Khas that the 1988 Act does not contain any provision which empowers a Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority to issue notices inviting applications for granting stage carriage/contract carriage permits, but he has also urged that having regard to the liberalised provisions of the 1988 Act with regard to the grant of such permit, the objection sought to be taken by the petitioner would really be of no avail since the applicants who bad applied in terms of the notices could very well apply for grant of such permits on the routes in question without any such notice. 10. Mr. Khan also urged that as far as the objections regarding formulation of routes is concerned, the same was taken up for consideration by the Division Bench which, inter alia, held that when a proposed route was part of or substantially aligned to an approved route, no separate approval was required to be given nor was such route required to be formulated under Section 68 (3)(ca) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 11. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, it appears that the Regional Transport Authority Nadia, exceeded his authority in issuing the impugned notices inviting applications from intending operators in respect of stage carriage/contract carriage permits on the routes indicated in the said notices. As has been correctly pointed out on behalf of the petitioner, a statutory authority has to act within the powers vested in it by the statute itself and it cannot act beyond such powers even if the ultimate object is of a beneficial nature. 12. The writ application must succeed all such ground alone. The impugned notices inviting applications from intending operators are hereby quashed. It is of course open to the State Government to exorcise its authority under Section 67 and other connected provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and this order will not in any way prevent the State Government from exercising such rights in future. The impugned notices inviting applications from intending operators are hereby quashed. It is of course open to the State Government to exorcise its authority under Section 67 and other connected provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and this order will not in any way prevent the State Government from exercising such rights in future. This order will not also prevent intending operators on the route in question from applying to the Regional Transport Authority Nadia, for grant of stage carriage/contract carriage permits on the routes in question and if such applications are made, the same are to be disposed of by the said authority in accordance with law, but, keeping in mind the provisions of Section 69 of the aforesaid Act and the decision of the Division Bench referred to above as to the provisions of Section 68 (3)(ca) of the 1983 Act. There will be no order as to costs. All parties are to act on a signed copy of the operative portion of this judgment on the usual undertakings.