Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 37 (CAL)

SAMAPTI ROY v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2004-01-19

BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA

body2004
BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) BY this writ application, the petitioner, an existing stage carriage permit-holder has challenged Memo No. 2380 dated 12th December, 2003 issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Hooghly, thereby cancelling the timetable allotted to her vide Memo No. 2459/mv dated 7th november, 2003 with immediate effect and asking her to maintain timetable issued earlier on August 18, 2003 under Memo No. 1756/mv. ( 2 ) THERE is no dispute that the petitioner has a valid stage carriage permit and for the purpose of running her vehicle the last timetable was issued vide Memo No. 2459/mv dated 7th November, 2003 which was extended up to 31st January, 2004. It, however, appears from record that during the subsistence of such timetable, all of a sudden, on December 12, 2003 the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Hooghly, cancelled the said timetable with immediate effect until a final settlement is made with all concerned and she was directed to maintain time in accordance with the earlier timetable dated August 18, 2003 which was substituted by the last timetable dated 7th November, 2003. ( 3 ) BEING dissatisfied, the petitioner has come up with the instant writ application. ( 4 ) MR. Roy, the teamed Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has advanced a pure question of law in support of this application. According to Mr. Roy once a timetable has been given for the purpose of running of a vehicle the same cannot be varied or changed during the period of validity without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without giving a notice of not less than one month as prescribed in Section 72 (2) (xxii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Mr. Roy, thus, contends that the aforesaid mandatory provision not having been complied with, the order impugned is liable to be set aside and the petitioner should be permitted to ply her vehicle in accordance with the existing timetable issued on November 7, 2003. Mr. Roy, in this connection, has relied upon the following decisions in support of his submissions : 1. K. M. Sadique v. Secretary, R. T. A. reported in AIR 1994 kerala 1; 2. Secretary, Changanachery Taluk Road Bus Thoshali Cooperative society v. Mathew Job reported in AIR 1993 Kerala 191; 3. Ramesh Chandra Sarkar v. State of West Bengal reported in 1993 (2) CLJ 217. K. M. Sadique v. Secretary, R. T. A. reported in AIR 1994 kerala 1; 2. Secretary, Changanachery Taluk Road Bus Thoshali Cooperative society v. Mathew Job reported in AIR 1993 Kerala 191; 3. Ramesh Chandra Sarkar v. State of West Bengal reported in 1993 (2) CLJ 217. ( 5 ) THIS application is opposed by the Transport Authority and Mr. Dey, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has vehemently contended that the Transport Authority has every right to vary the timetable at any point of time even without giving notice to the petitioner. According to Mr. Dey, the petitioner has no legal right to have a timetable according to his sweet will. Mr. Dey contends that the petitioner has definitely a right to have a timetable and once such timetable is given, he cannot dispute such timetable unless he can show that the said timetable is clashing with the timetable given to any other permit-holder. Mr. Dey, thus, prays for dismissal of this writ application. ( 6 ) THE fact that no prior notice before cancellation of timetable dated november 7, 2003 was given has not been disputed. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, the only question that arises for determination in this writ application is whether the Transport Authority is entitled to cancel an existing timetable during its period of validity without giving one month notice as contemplated in Section 72 (2) (xxii) of the Act. ( 8 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the provisions contained in Section 72 of the Act, it appears that timetable is a condition attached to the permit granted to any permit-holder. Once a permit is granted, the transport authority must give a timetable which the permit-holder is required to follow. It appears from the provisions contained in Section 72 (2) (iii) and (v) that grant of timetable is a condition attached to permit. Once I hold that timetable is a condition attached to permit, in view of provisions contained in Section 72 (2) (xxii) of the Act such condition of permit can be varied or any additional condition can be attached to the permit only in accordance with tjhe provision contained therein by giving notice of not less than one month. Once I hold that timetable is a condition attached to permit, in view of provisions contained in Section 72 (2) (xxii) of the Act such condition of permit can be varied or any additional condition can be attached to the permit only in accordance with tjhe provision contained therein by giving notice of not less than one month. I am not disputing for a moment the right of the Regional Transport Authority to substitute an existing timetable with another after the expiry of the period of validity mentioned in the timetable. But if the Transport Authority wants to change an existing timetable within its period of validity, such action on the part of Transport authority. . . . . . . . . . to "variation of the condition of permit" and, thus, Section 72 (2) (xxii) is attracted and the new timetable can be given only after giving notice of not less than one month to the permit-holder. ( 9 ) I, thus, find that the Regional Transport Authority acted in contravention of the provisions of the Act in changing existing timetable which was valid up to 31st January, 2004 beforehand without giving any notice to the petitioner. I therefore, set aside the order impugned and permit the petitioner to follow the previous timetable dated 7th November, 2003 so long the validity of the timetable dated 7th November, 2003 does not expire on 31st January, 2004. On the expiry of 31 st January, 2004, the respondent authority will be free to give new timetable or can also extend the existing one; otherwise once new timetable is given or the present one is extended, the authority must give one month notice for further change of timetable during its period of validity. ( 10 ) THE writ application is, thus, allowed with the above observation. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs.