B. GHOSH, J. ( 1 ) A notice bearing Memo No. 2871/mv dated 11th November, 1998, was pasted in the Notice Board of the Regional Transport Authority, Midnapur, inviting applications from intending candidates for grant of 10 (ten) temporary permits for the route: Haldia to Mechada Railway Station and 6 (six) temporary permits for the route: Haldia to Kukrahati Launch Ghat. The petitioner, a young educated unemployed person, acquired a new Bus and got the same registered on 12th November, 1998. In order to deploy his Bus on one of the said routes, he made an application in terms of the said notice on 17th November, 1998. The petitioner then did not hear anything officially from the RTA concerned and on enquiry he came to learn that at a meeting held on 24th December, 1998, the RTA concerned has rejected his application and has agreed to issue offer letters to others. The petitioner was surprised to learn that a Bus bearing Registration No. WB-29-1265 belonging to one Sri Gouri Bala Jana, which was plying on the route: Haldia to Howrah, has been permitted to be plied on one of the routes in question at the said meeting. He further came to learn that Sri Prasad Mondal, who has no Bus at all, has also been granted a permit or an offer letter. He also came to learn that the Bus bearing Registration No. WB-20-2225, which was then plying on the route : Kaigeria to Mechada Railway Station, was also granted permit on one of the rules in question. He then, applied on 24th March, 1999 for issue of a certified copy of the resolution of the RTA concerned dated 24th December, 1998. The petitioner was not given the certified copy of the said resolution. The petitioner, then, approached this Court by filing W. P. 6150 (W) of 1999. The said writ petition was dealt with by me on 12th July, 1999, when the Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Midnapore, was present in Court. The petitioner was not given the certified copy of the said resolution. The petitioner, then, approached this Court by filing W. P. 6150 (W) of 1999. The said writ petition was dealt with by me on 12th July, 1999, when the Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Midnapore, was present in Court. It was then submitted by the Secretary, RTA Midnapore, as recorded in the order dated 12th July, 1999 that only in March, 1999, he has taken over the charge as the Secretary of the said RTA and that in January, 1999, a meeting was held when some of the applications received against the Notification dated 11th November, 1998, were considered and the rest of the applications will be considered in the meeting to be held in the month of July, 1999. Having regard to those submission, I observed that it was unfortunate that applications in lots were considered and permits are being issued in lots. I further observed that the authority must have waited till it had considered all the applications and thereafter, it ought to have had issued permits. However, having regard to the submissions made by the said Secretary, I disposed of the said writ petition by directing the RTA Midnapore, to consider and decide all the remaining applications received by it against the Notification dated 11th November, 1998, as quickly as possible, but not later than 1st August, 1999, and to communicate to each applicant the fate of their applications by 15 days from the date of the decision. Thereafter, by a communication dated 30th July, 1999, the Secretary, RTA, Midnapore, communicated to the petitioner the text of the resolution adopted by the RTA concerned on 22nd July, 1999 in regard to the application of the petitioner. Thereafter, by a communication dated 30th July, 1999, the Secretary, RTA, Midnapore, communicated to the petitioner the text of the resolution adopted by the RTA concerned on 22nd July, 1999 in regard to the application of the petitioner. In that, it has been stated that the concerned RTA has considered all the pending applications for issuance of permanent/temporary permits on the route : Haldia to Mechada Railway Station and Mechada to Kukrahati Launch Ghat in terms of this Court's order and discussed the matter in detail and that each and every applicants were issued notices for personal hearing to consider the merits of their cases and who were present were heard by the concerned RTA one by one and then it was resolved that as vacancy did not exit on these routes and that presently there was no public demand for more Buses on the aforesaid routes, all the applications were rejected. Hence, this writ petition. ( 2 ) SRI M. V. Rao, the Chairman of the RTA, Midnapore, has filed an affidavit-in-opposition. In that he has stated that on the basis of the Notification dated 11th November, 1998, the RTA Midnapore, received 117 applications for the routes in question. It was then stated that in the Notification it had been notified that only ten temporary permits would be issued in favour of intending operators. It has, then, been stated that after the Notification, the First Board Meeting was held on 24th November, 1999, and in that it has been decided that ten permits will be issued in favour of applicants who will be successfully selected and, accordingly, ten offer letters were issued in favour of selected persons. It has then been stated that only ten temporary permits were to be issued in terms of the said notification, but offer letters for the permanent stage carriage permits have been issued in favour of ten successful candidates and that though in the notification it had been mentioned for issuance of temporary permits on the route, in question, later on it had been decided that temporary permits cannot be issued to carry the regular passengers and, accordingly, ten permanent stage carriage permits were issued. In that affidavit, the Chairman has stated that he is filing the said affidavit to state the reason why the petitioner's application for grant of permanent stage carriage permits on the routes in question had not been considered before issuance of the permanent stage carriage permits to other ten persons. No such reason however, has been furnished in any part of the said affidavit. It has been stated in the said affidavit that the concerned RTA Board decided that the applications, which are pending after issuance of ten offer letters, would be considered later and for that purpose a second notification was issued on 20th May, 1999 and on the basis thereof the RTA Board concerned has decided to issue nine more permanent permits in favour of the intending operators and, accordingly, further permits have been issued, in favour of the selected persons. He, then, stated in that affidavit that in terms of the order passed by me on 12th July, 1999 the rest of the applications were disposed of at the Board Meeting held on 22nd July, 1999. He, then, stated that at present, there is no vacancy on the basis of the earlier notification and ultimately he has stated that there is no provision in the Act for issuing notification and the said notification was issued only for general information. He then added that if this Court is pleased to hold that before issuance of ten permits to selected persons on the basis of the notification dated 11th November, 1999, the petitioner's application for grant of permit ought to have been taken into consideration by the concerned RTA Board and the same having not done is in violation of principles of natural justice, he may be pardoned for the acts and omissions which were caused by him and which was said to have not been done wilfully and deliverately. ( 3 ) I was surprised to read this affidavit-in-opposition. The Chairman of the concerned RTA Board supplied no information at all to Court. He acted in a most miserable manner. He did not state the very basic reason for filing the affidavit as has been recorded by him. He did not make any attempt to state why the others were selected and the remaining were rejected. The Chairman of the concerned RTA Board supplied no information at all to Court. He acted in a most miserable manner. He did not state the very basic reason for filing the affidavit as has been recorded by him. He did not make any attempt to state why the others were selected and the remaining were rejected. He did not state as to how a person who did not have a vehicle could at all respond to the subject notification, which was issued for grant of temporary permits. I was also surprised that the subject resolutions were not produced along with the affidavit-in-opposition. I had, therefore, to call for the subject resolutions. Looking at the subject resolutions, I could locate the selected candidates. I issued notices to each of these selected candidates with a direction upon them to produce before this Court their applications and other representations, if any, made by them for consideration. Only one of such selected candidates has responded to such notice. He has filed an affidavit from which it appears that at the time when he made the application, he did not have a Bus at all. He was granted the offer letter after the present Secretary had joined or took over his charge and on the basis of such offer letters, he has acquired a Bus subsequent to 12th July, 1999. The additional ground for selecting him, the gentleman has relied on a Doctor's Certificate showing that he is a chronic patient. A young man as the petitioner was and who was fully equipped to serve as he owned a Bus at the relevant time was rejected unceremoniously; but a heart patient having Bus not only applied for grant of a temporary permit, which is not permissible, but was issued an offer letter, so as to issue a permanent permit in his favour after he acquires a Bus. The minutes, which have been issued by the RTA concerned, are much more surprising. It will set out each of them hereinbelow in order to keep the same on record and to demonstrate how capriciously this RTA has acted in dealing with this matter. The first resolution taken on 24th December, 1998, is also follows :-"resolution-21 : the members of RTA have examined all the applications received in terms of notification No. 2871/mv dated 11. 11. The first resolution taken on 24th December, 1998, is also follows :-"resolution-21 : the members of RTA have examined all the applications received in terms of notification No. 2871/mv dated 11. 11. 98 and after proper verification of the Biodata with other particulars as furnished in the applications and after thorough exchange of views among the members, the following candidates were selected against the route and fleet strength noted hereunder subject to the conditions that the selected candidates should produce their own vehicle not covered by any permit either temporary or permanent in any local or inter-regional route. Also it was decided that if any selected candidate produce his own bus covered by permit his case can not be considered unless he surrender his previous permit. (1) Haldia to Machada-via-NH-41: Vacancy - 4 (2) Haldia to Mechada-via-Tamluk : Vacancy - 6 Total 0 SI. No. Name and address of the selected candidates Vehicle No. 1. Sk. Asraf Ali/s/o Late Gour Ali Vil. Atkina, P. P. Gopalour, R. S. Mahisadal, Midnapore WB/31-0451 2. Md. Serajus Salekin, S/o Late Kehinoor Ahmed, Vill & P. O. Pratappur, Dist, Midnapore NEW 3. Ashome Kr. Santra, Vill-Janubasan, P. O. Balluckhat,p. S. Tamluk, Dist. Midnapore WB/29-2225 4 Smt. Gouri Rani Jana, W/o Shanbhu Charan Jana,vill-Deulpota, P. O. Barbasudebpur, P. S. Sutahata, Dist. Midnapore WB-29/1265 5. Sagar Transport Service, Vill & P. O. Debhog, NEW 6. P. S. Haldia, Dist. Midnapore Prabal Kanti Jana, Vill-Deulpota, P. O. Deuppota Keshabchak, Dist. Midnapore WB-29/2327 7. Sk. Golam Mustafa, Vill Dighasipur P. O. Chakdwipa, P. S. Sutahata, Dist. Midnapore WB-29/1906 8. Sudip Kr. Bhowmick, Vill Padumkhana, P. O. Dakshin Srikrishnapur, P. S.-Nanda Kumar, Dist. Midnapore NEW 9. Smt. Santi Bera, W/o J. R. Bera, Vill & P. O. Patimbarchak, P. S. Haldia, Dist-Midnapore WB-11/9593 10. Bishnupada Ghora, S/o Lt. Sarat Ch. Ghora, Vill. Salgachia, P. O. & P. S. Takluk WB-31/0940 Route : Kikrahati Launch Ghat : Vacancy-6 SI. Name and address of the selected candidates Vehicle number 1. Chabilal Mondal, Vill & P. O. Chaitanyapur, P. S. Sutahata, Dist.-Midnapore WB-29/1958 2. M/s Haldia Bus Employees Cooperative Transport Society, Chairman-P. K. Maity, Vill & P. O. Durgachak, Dist.-Midnapore WB-29/0874 3. Ajit Kr. Paul, Vill & P. O. Hatibaria, P. S. Haldia, Dist.-Midnapore WB-29/1114 4. Billa Pada Bhowmick, Vill. Rampur, P. O. M. Gobindapur, P. S. Maheshtala, Dt. 24-P (S) NEW 5. M/s Haldia Bus Employees Cooperative Transport Society, Chairman-P. K. Maity, Vill & P. O. Durgachak, Dist.-Midnapore WB-29/0874 3. Ajit Kr. Paul, Vill & P. O. Hatibaria, P. S. Haldia, Dist.-Midnapore WB-29/1114 4. Billa Pada Bhowmick, Vill. Rampur, P. O. M. Gobindapur, P. S. Maheshtala, Dt. 24-P (S) NEW 5. Prasad Mondal, Vill & P. O. Chaitnyapur, P. S. Sutahata, Dist.-Midnapore NEW 6. Smt. Supriya Maity, W. O. Bibek Maity, Vill : Keshabpur Jalpai, P. O. & P. S. Mahisadal, Dist : Midnapore WGB/5208 Secretary RTA is requested to issue offer letter/permit accordingly. ( 4 ) MEMBERS of RTA, Midnapore also discussed elaborately regarding the prayer of Chairperson, Haldia Municipality for issuance of temporary permits in favour of Haldia Municipality for playing of 10 (ten) buses between : (1)Haldia to Mechada-vis-NH-41 (3 Nos.) (2) Haldia to Mecheda-vis-Chaitnyapur/mahisadal/tamluk (3 Nos.) and Haldia to Kukrahati Lauch Ghat (4 Nos.)After prolonged discussion amongst the members and considering the acute need and tremendous demand of the local commutors/workers/students/office at off and daily passengers, the members of RTA unanimously decided to grant 10 (ten temporary permits in the aforesaid routes vide section 87 (c) of the M. V. Act. Secretary, RTA is requested to issue temporary permits accordingly. " ( 5 ) FROM the above, it will appear that though all the applications were considered no reason far less any cogent reason has been given for selecting the candidates. There is not even one single whisper why the others have been rejected. It is even more surprising that ten additional temporary permits were agreed to be granted to the Haldia Municipality, noting the acute demand. It is to be noted here that while sixteen were selected, of whom a man, had permits for other routes, there were 117 applicants. ( 6 ) THE next resolution is dated 1st April, 1999, when the present Secretary had already-joined. The resolution is as follows : "resolution-30 the route position of Haldia-Mecheda-via-NH/41 were reviewed with reference to the resolution No. 20 dated 24. 12. 98 considering the demand of the public in these routes and considering the request of A. D. M. , Haldia. It was decided that RTA will invite applications for issue of permanent permits of 6 (six) more new permits in the route Haldia-Mecheda-via-NH-41 and 3 (three) more new routes from Haldia to Kukrahati Launch-ghat through office Notice-Board from the elegible candidates. It was decided that RTA will invite applications for issue of permanent permits of 6 (six) more new permits in the route Haldia-Mecheda-via-NH-41 and 3 (three) more new routes from Haldia to Kukrahati Launch-ghat through office Notice-Board from the elegible candidates. Secretary, RTA is requested to act accordingly. " ( 7 ) ALTHOUGH in the affidavit-in-opposition, it has been stated that these nine permits have been issued in terms of the resolution taken on 1st April, 1999, but the particulars of the selected candidates and the decision to select those nine have been deliberately suppressed. Even after repeated calling for records, those have not been produced. The last resolution dated 22nd July 1999 is as follows :-"resolution-3 rta has considered all the pending applications for issuance of permanent/temporary permits on the route Haldia to Mecheda Rly. Station and Haldia to Kukrahati Launch Ghat in terms of Hon'ble High Court's Order dated 12. 7. 1999 as received from learned Advocate Mr. N. I. Khan in presence of Secretary RTA and discussed the matter in detail in connection with the W. P. No. 6150 (W) of 1999 and W. P. No. 6151 (W) of 1999. Each and every applicant who were issued notices for personal hearing to confirm the merits of their case and who were present, were heard by the RTA one by one. Then it is resolved that as vacancy does not exist on these routes and that presently there is no public demand for more buses on the aforesaid routes, all the applications are rejected. Secretary, RTA is requested to inform all concern according. " ( 8 ) IF these are looked by anyone dispossionately, it will show that the members of the RTA concerned have acted in a manner by which they have lowered the estimation of a Governmental authority like RTA. Anyone looking at these incidents chronologically would have one and the only conclusion that in order to achieve their vested interest, the members of the RTA have selected persons close to them for reasons which have not been unfolded in these proceedings and which cannot be unfolded in a proceeding of this nature. To achieve such vested interest they have acted contrary to law. Some of such violations are as follows: (a)Against a notification for grant of temporary permits, they considered applications made by persons who did not own a bus. To achieve such vested interest they have acted contrary to law. Some of such violations are as follows: (a)Against a notification for grant of temporary permits, they considered applications made by persons who did not own a bus. (b)While considering applications made for grant of temporary permits as well as permanent permits, they did not give any reason why the applications for grant of permanent permits are being rejected, when for making such applications statutory fees have been paid by such applicants. ( 9 ) ON top of that why permits will be granted to the selected persons and why the others will be rejected, no attempt was even made to show. Later on the ground that there is no public demand all other pending applications were unceremoniously turned down to protect the interest of those persons. It was forgotten that public demand is to be considered while establishing a route and after such establishment the RTA has to follow the open legislative policy. The matter cannot be permitted to rest here. For diminishing the image of the state machinery by the members of the RTA concerned in the manner they have acted in this matter, I direct each member of the RTA, Midnapore, who participated in the aforementioned meetings held on 24th December, 1998, 1st April, 1999 and 22nd July, 1999 to pay damage of Rs. 10,000/- to the Government of West Bengal within 15th January, 2000. In the event, such damage is not paid to the State of West Bengal, the State of West Bengal shall recover the same from their salaries. In the event, any member is not salaried person, non-payment of damages as awarded shall tantamount to contempt of this Court. ( 10 ) THE Secretary, RTA Midnapore, made an untrue statement to Court on 12th July, 1999, when he contended that in lots, applications have been considered and the application of the petitioner will be considered in the month itself. In that view of the matter, he shall pay cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the learned Registrar General, Appellate Side, High Court, Calcutta, within 15th January, 2000, whereupon the learned Registrar General, Appellate Side of this Court shall pay the same to the State of West Bengal. In the event, no such cost is paid, the State of West Bengal shall recover the same from the salaries of the Secretary, RTA, Midnapore. 10,000/- to the learned Registrar General, Appellate Side, High Court, Calcutta, within 15th January, 2000, whereupon the learned Registrar General, Appellate Side of this Court shall pay the same to the State of West Bengal. In the event, no such cost is paid, the State of West Bengal shall recover the same from the salaries of the Secretary, RTA, Midnapore. ( 11 ) IN the matter of grant of permanent stage carriage permit, the legislature has expressed an open policy. In view of such policy, grant of permanent stage carriage permit is a rule and non-grant is an exception. Under the Act, the RTA has not been empowered to assess the number of Buses to be plied on a particular route. It is, therefore, beyond their competence to say that there is no need of any more buses on a particular route. It cannot also assume that any further permits granted on a particular route will create any difficulty, it having not been granted the power even to assume the same. The applicants, including the petitioner, who made the applications for grant of permanent stage carriage permits, could not be denied permanent stage carriage permits on the plea that assumed vacancy has been filled in. This has been done only to protect those persons close to the members of RTA who have been selected in a most irresponsible manner as mentioned above and to preserve the route for them contrary to the open legislative policy of he Government. ( 12 ) I, therefore, direct the Regional Transport Authority, Modnapore, to reconsider each of those applications, who had applied for permanent permit, once again to decide the same in accordance with law. Such decision must be taken within two months from today and each of the applicants must be communicated of the decision within three weeks from the date of the decision. This writ petition is, thus, disposed of. In view of the order already passed in this writ petition being W. P. 15031 (W) of 1999, no fresh order need be passed on the other writ petitions being W. P. 15032 (W) of 1999, W. P. 15824 (W) of 1999, W. P. 15 824 (W) of 1999, W. P. 15823 (W) of 1999 and A. S. T. 3291 of 1999 and all of these are disposed of, as such. Let a plain copy of the operative portion of this order, duly counter-signed by the Assistant Registrar (Court) of this Court, be handed over to the learned Advocate, for the RTA, for the purpose of communication. Let urgent xerox certified copies of this order, if applied for, be also delivered to the learned Advocates, for the parties. Petition disposed of.