Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 459 (CAL)

JYOTI KUMAR GANGULY v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2001-07-31

RANAJIT KUMAR MITRA

body2001
R. K. MITRA, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition, prayer was made for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to "revoke the licence being No. MS-20 dated 02. 01. 2001 and give effect of the letter dated 14. 6. 2001". The petitioner alleged that on July 2, 1997 the petitioner had made an application before the Motor Vehicle Department for being allowed to operate a Motor Training School in Dasnagar area or Andul area. The application, it would appear, had been rejected by the authorities in writing dated July 22, 1997. The petitioner was aggrieved and challenged the refusal in a writ application. The Court by an order dated September 29, 1997 gave directions for affidavits, and made an interim order of status quo with regard to "running a Motor Training School in the Howrah area". The writ petition, admittedly was pending final disposal. According to the petitioner, in violation of the Court's order dated September 29, 1997 the Licensing Authority, Motor Vehicles Department, Howrah had issued a licence bearing No. MS-20 dated January 2, 2001 to one "maa Manasha Mongal Motor Training School, a proprietorship firm represented by one Anup Kumar Bag, which shall be referred by me in this order as "the licence-holder". According to the petitioner, before the Licencing Authority could formally revoke the licence, the licence-holder had filed a writ petition before this Court, which shall be referred by me in this order as the licence-holder's petition. This Court admittedly had disposed of the licence-holder's petition by an order dated July 13, 2001. In the order, the Court had directed that the letter dated June, 14, 2001 revoking the valid licence of the licence-holder shall be of no effect, and the licence holder had been granted liberty to run the Motor Training School on the basis of the valid licence. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the revocation of the licence, by the authorities, was "in consonance with the order of status quo???? and therefore could not have been interfered with before the final disposal of the said writ petition. " It had also been alleged in the petition, that this Court "did not take into consideration the order of status quo dated 29. 9. 97 passed in W. P. No. 21501 (W) of 1997. and therefore could not have been interfered with before the final disposal of the said writ petition. " It had also been alleged in the petition, that this Court "did not take into consideration the order of status quo dated 29. 9. 97 passed in W. P. No. 21501 (W) of 1997. " It was argued by advocate appearing for the petitioner, that at the time of making the order dated July 13, 2001, advocate appearing for the respondent authorities did not place before this Court, either the letter dated April 9, 2001 written by advocate for the petitioner, or the order of the Court dated September 29, 1997. ( 3 ) IT was submitted by advocate appearing for the respondent authorities, as also advocate for the licence-holder, that at the time of making the order dated July 13, 2001, the order dated September 29, 1997 had been placed before the Court, and a xerox of the order was kept with the records of the petition of the licence holder, in Court. ( 4 ) THE matter was adjourned in those circumstances and the department was directed to produce the file relating to the licence holder's petition. The file was produced in Court and indeed a xerox of the order dated September 29, 1997 had been kept in the records of the matter. The allegation in the petition, that this Court did not take into consideration the order of status quo at the time of making the order dated July 13, 2001 was unwarranted and reckless. Indeed, a xerox of the order dated September 29, 1997 had been produced before this Court during the course of the hearing of the licence-holder's writ petition. ( 5 ) THE prayer in the present petition was for revoking the licence bearing No. MS-20 dated January 2, 2001 and to give effect to the order dated June 14, 2001 revoking the licence. The licence-holder, who was the owner of the licence, and likely to be affected most, if an order was to be made in favour of the petitioner, was not impleaded as a party in the petition. Of course, advocate for the licence-holder was present in Court. The licence-holder, who was the owner of the licence, and likely to be affected most, if an order was to be made in favour of the petitioner, was not impleaded as a party in the petition. Of course, advocate for the licence-holder was present in Court. It was not the case of the respondent authorities that they had revoked the licence by issuing the order dated June 14, 2001 after affording a hearing to the licence-holder, or service of any prior notice in that respect. In fact, there was no trace of the Licencing Authorities complying with the basic principles of natural justice. There was no denial of the fact that the licence-holder did posses a valid licence, which had been issued by the Licensing Authority, and that the licence would continue to be valid till January 1, 2006. ( 6 ) THE ad interim order September 29, 1997 was made in an application by the petitioner, on the basis of allegations that the authorities had wrongfully and illegally refused the petitioner a licence to run a motor training school in Howrah. The ad interim order was:"let this matter come up "for Orders" on November 17, 1997. During the pendency of the same, there will be an order of status quo as on this date with regard to running a Motor Training School in the Howrah area. " ( 7 ) THERE was nothing on record however, as to why this matter was allowed to remain pending, though it was the specific direction of the Hon'ble Judge that the matter should come into the list marked "for Orders" on November 17, 1997. The application, significantly, in which the ad interim order had been made, was not a petition in a public interest litigation. There was no reason as to why an interim order made in an application by an individual, ought to be considered as an order in rem. The respondent authorities had issued the licence on January 2, 2001 which was well after four years of the interim order. There was no reason to believe that the authorities were not aware of the interim order, at the time of the issuance of the licence. The licence-holder had been allowed to conduct a motor training school till January 1, 2006. There was no reason to believe that the authorities were not aware of the interim order, at the time of the issuance of the licence. The licence-holder had been allowed to conduct a motor training school till January 1, 2006. Having issued the licence in favour of the licence-holder the respondent authorities in revoking the licence in its memo dated June 14, 2001 were in violation of the diverse protections without affording the licence-holder an opportunity of being heard, had violated the provisions of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, as also the principles of natural justice. It would appear that the decisions for revocation was, "in connection with letter of Shri Samarjit Roy Chowdhury, Advocate, Calcutta High Court date. 9. 4. 2001. " A xerox of the letter dated April 9, 2001 was made over to Court by advocate for the petitioner. The xerox letter was directed to be kept with the records of this application. Indeed there was an element of threat in the letter, to the extent that there was a possibility of the respondent authorities being liable for contempt of Court, if the licence was allowed to continue to remain valid. In the absence of any allegation that the licence-holder had obtained the licence upon suppression of material facts, illegal representations or in breach of any law and there being no allegations of malafide, the summary revocation of the valid licence was wrongful, illegal and in colourable exercise of power by the respondent authorities. ( 8 ) THE allegations made in Court, by advocate for the petitioner, against the advocate for the respondent authorities were unfounded reckless and in derogation to the high standards of practice among the fraternity of the advocates of this Court. The advocate for the respondent authorities, has been practioning in this Court for some time now. He enjoys a reputation, among his colleagues, of being an honest, upright and honourable. I have no reason to believe otherwise. I have always found him to be faithful to his duties both to his client as also to the Court. ( 9 ) SURELY, it could not be the intention of either the legislature or the Courts, that an industrial town such as Howrah, should be deprived of motor training schools for all time to come. I have always found him to be faithful to his duties both to his client as also to the Court. ( 9 ) SURELY, it could not be the intention of either the legislature or the Courts, that an industrial town such as Howrah, should be deprived of motor training schools for all time to come. The Hon'ble Judge in His order dated September 29, 1997 had directed the matter to appear in the cause list on November 17, 1997 in order to finally dispose of the alleged grievance of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, "the matter was pending as on date. " There was no explanation whatsoever, as to whether the petitioner had made any effort since the expiry of the returnable date, to have the matter brought to the list, or as to why the matter had been kept pending for so many years. The attitude of the petitioner would appear to be, that if licence was not granted to the petitioner then no licence should be granted to any one. So the petitioner blissfully chose to remain content with the order of Status quo for last four years and more. Such capricious design and conduct cannot, and does not, prevent the respondent authorities to perform their duties in accordance with law. Especially so where in issuing the licence to the respondent authorities must have been satisfied that it was expedient and necessary that the locality should have a motor training school. On January 2, 2001 the Licencing Authority had granted the licence in favour of the licence holder. The decision to revoke the licence was an instance of non application of mind by the respondent authorities and total disregard to the requirements and well being of the people of the locality. The interim order had been made of course, in an application where the petitioner had challenged an order of refusal by the authorities to grant a similar licence in favour of the petitioner. It could not be, and it was not, the intention of the Hon'ble Judge that the interim order of 'status quo' should continue for all time to come, and there should be no motor training school in the town of Howrah. It could not be, and it was not, the intention of the Hon'ble Judge that the interim order of 'status quo' should continue for all time to come, and there should be no motor training school in the town of Howrah. ( 10 ) IN those circumstances I would be inclined to hold that the petitioner having the carriage of proceedings in its earlier petition had chosen not to have the petition disposed of, and the petitioner could not be allowed to deprive the people of Howrah from having a motor training school by reason of the interim order of status quo made on September 29, 1997. It is appalling that inspite of having the licence in accordance with law and during the period of validity of the licence the respondent authority should summarily revoke the licence and stop the running of the school by the licence-holder, "as per order of District Magistrate, Howrah in connection with letter of Shri Samarjit Roy Chowdhury, Advocate Calcutta High Court dated. 9. 4. 2001". ( 11 ) FOR those reasons, I have no hesitation to hold that by summarily revoking the valid licence, the Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Howrah had violated the basic principles of natural justice, and the provisions of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly the licence holder had not been served with any notice, nor was any reference made to him at all. The licence had been granted as early as January 3, 2001 and the motor training school was in operation. The petitioner chose not to make any objection, till the letter by its advocate dated April 9, 2001. Assuming the respondent authorities considered it expedient and necessary to review the procedure of the grant of the licence the law warranted notice to be issued to the licence holder and afford him proper hearing. In revoking the licence as they had done, the respondent authorities had acted in excess of their powers wrongfully and illegally. The petitioner in this case it would appear had not taken any step in respect to the interim order for the last four years and more. Finally the petitioner had chosen not be implead the licence-holder as a Party in this petition. The prayer in the petition however, were for a direction to revoke his licence, and stop him from running the motor training school. Finally the petitioner had chosen not be implead the licence-holder as a Party in this petition. The prayer in the petition however, were for a direction to revoke his licence, and stop him from running the motor training school. On that score of course I would find this application not maintainable. ( 12 ) FOR those reasons, I hold unhesitatingly, that where an interim order was made by Court fixing a returnable date, and by reason of the interim order the interest of the public at large was liable to suffer prejudice, it would be for that party who had the carriage of proceedings and in whose favour the interim order had been made, to take all reasonable steps so that the directions of the Court were complied with, and a finality was arrived at with regard to the interim order either on the returnable date, or at the pleasure of the Court. ( 13 ) THIS application is accordingly dismissed. This order, it is made clear shall not prevent the respondent authorities from proceeding in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties shall be at liberty to obtain xerox of this order counter signed by the Assistant Registrar of this Court upon an undertaking by the advocates to obtain a certified xerox of this order on the usual undertakings. Application dismissed.