Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 43 (CAL)

Sankar Kar v. State of West Bengal

2001-02-01

Sujit Barman Roy

body2001
Order Sujit Barman Roy, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents. 2. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Hooghly as communicated to the petitioner by the Secretary of the said authority under memo No. 3142(2)/M.V. dated 23.11.2000 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for route permit on the grounds mentioned therein. The grounds assigned for rejecting" the prayer of the petitioner for route permit are that the route is a narrow and congested one. There are huge number of public vehicles plying on this route. More permits would add to the congestion and it will also add to the public inconvenience. Considering the safety of peoples lives on this route, prayer of the petitioner for permit on the route in question was rejected. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner drew my specific attention to clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 74 and proviso to sub-section (2) of section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Referring to these provisions, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that no such notification as contemplated under the aforesaid provisions has ever been issued in respect of the route for which the petitioner had prayed for route permit for an auto rickshaw and therefore it was obligatory on the part of the Regional Transport Authority, Hooghly to allow the prayer of the petitioner and to grant him the permit. 4. Sub-section (3) (a) of section 74 of the said Act, inter alia, provides that the State Government shall, if so directed by the Central Government, having regard to the number of vehicles, road conditions and other relevant matters, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct a State Transport Authority and a Regional Transport Authority to limit the number of contract carriages generally or of any specified type as may be fixed and specified in the notification, operating on city routes in towns with a population of not less than five lakhs. Likewise, the first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 80 thereof provides that a Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1) of section 66 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 subsection (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. From the aforesaid provisions it is apparent that these provisions with respect to contract carriages are applicable to routes falling within city areas having a population of not less than five lakhs. It is not the case of the petitioner that the route in respect of which he had asked for contract carriage permit falls within any such city having a population of not less than five lakhs. Therefore, the grounds agitated before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the strength of aforesaid provisions of law are apparently not available to him. 5. Sub-section (2) of section 80 of the Act provides that a Regional Transport Authority, a State Transport Authority or any prescribed .authority referred to in sub-section (1) of section 66 shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under this Act. It is apparent from this provision that ordinarily the permit as prayed for in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder should be granted. The grant of permit is therefore the rule and refusal thereof is an exception. Even then I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in no case the authorities prescribed under sub-section(2) cannot reject the prayer of any applicant for pennit unless the route in question is covered by a notification contemplated under proviso to sub-section (2) of section 80 and sub-section (3) (a) of section 74 of the Act. AB already pointed out by me hereinabove, aforesaid provisions of law are not applicable in-respect of routes falling beyond town areas having a population of not less than five lakhs. AB already pointed out by me hereinabove, aforesaid provisions of law are not applicable in-respect of routes falling beyond town areas having a population of not less than five lakhs. Therefore in respect of such routes the Transport authorities as contemplated under sub-section (2) can in exceptional cases reject the prayer for such permit. But such refusal is always an exception and grant of permit is the rule, and the Transport authorities while rejecting such prayer for permit must record reasons. Such reason must be based on necessary facts and figures. 6. I am, therefore, constrained to reject the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in no case the authorities cannot reject such prayers for permit. However, it appears from the impugned order that the Regional Transport Authority has come to its conclusions that route is very narrow-and congested and that there are large number of vehicles plying on this route or that further permits will add to the congestion and public inconvenience. These conclusions arrived at by the Regional Transport Authority are not supported by the basic facts and figures as to the average breadth of the route, number of vehicles plying on that route including the average volume of traffic movement on this route during pick hours. Unless these basic facts and figures are given, we are unable to verify the legality, correctness or otherwise propriety of the reasons assigned by the Regional Transport Authority in the communication now under challenge before this Court. It is, therefore, expected that the Regional Transport Authority while rejecting such prayers for permit must record the reasons supported by basic facts and figures so that either the appellate authority contemplated under the statute or in an appropriate case the Writ Court can verify the correctness or otherwise propriety of the conclusions arrived at by the Regional Transport Authority. Without such facts and figures it is not possible for me or for any Court or authority to examine the correctness of the conclusions arrived at by the Regional Transport Authority. 7. Without such facts and figures it is not possible for me or for any Court or authority to examine the correctness of the conclusions arrived at by the Regional Transport Authority. 7. In these circumstances, I am constrained to allow this petition and quash the impugned memo under annexure 'E' and direct the Regional Transport Authority to consider the prayer of the petitioner afresh and after giving its reasons with essential facts and figures to dispose of the prayer of the petitioner for permit within a period of 2(two) months from the date of communication of this order. 8. The petition is thus disposed of. 9. No order as to costs. 10. All parties are to act on a xerox signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking. Writ petition allowed.