Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 724 (CAL)

Nandini Sinha v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2007-09-18

PRATAP KUMAR RAY, SANKAR PRASAD MITRA

body2007
Judgment :- (1.) HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. (2.) THE appeal and stay application both are taken up as on days list for final hearing. (3.) THIS appeal has been preferred challenging the refusal to pass any interim order in the writ application as moved by the appellant, alleging illegality on grant of permit in favour of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on the ground that such permit was granted after lapse of the offer letter. The writ petitioner/ appellant is the existing operator in the route in question. It appears from section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 that the revision is maintainable before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the writ petitioner/appellant had the alternative speedy and efficacious remedy by filing a revisional application under the statutory provision. Section 90 reads such:-"90. Revision-The State Transport Appellate Tribunal may, on an application made to it, call for the record of any case in which an order has been made by a State Transport Authority or Regional transport Authority against which no appeal lies, and if it appears to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal that the order made by the State transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority is improper or illegal, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal may pass such order in relation to the case as it deems fit and every such order shall be final: provided that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal shall not entertain any application from a person aggrieved by an order of a state Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority, unless the application is made within thirty days from the date of the order: provided further that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making the application in time: provided also that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal shall not pass an order under this section prejudicial to any person without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4.) IT is a settled legal position that when there is existence of alternative remedy, the writ application is not maintainable. (4.) IT is a settled legal position that when there is existence of alternative remedy, the writ application is not maintainable. Reliance may be placed to the judgment passed in the case State of M. P. v. Bhailal Bhai, reported in air 1964 SC 1006 , the judgment passed in the cases Rajasthan S. R. T. C. v. Krishna Kant, reported in 1995 (5) SCC 75 , Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kurien E. Kalathi, reported in 2006 (6) SCC 293 , Sri Sant Sadguru Janardan swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdho Utpadak Sanstha v. State of maharashtra, reported in 2001 (8) SCC 509 , Pratap Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in 2002 (7) SCC 484 , G. K. N. Drive shafts (India) Ltd. v. I. T. O. , reported in 2003 (1) SCC 72 and U. P. State Spinning Co-operative Ltd. v. R. S. Pande, reported in 2005 (8) SCC 264 . Furthermore, it is a settled legal position that where there is a hierarchy of the appeal by the statute, without exhausting the statutory remedy no writ is maintainable. Reliance may be placed to the judgment passed in the cases P. N. B. v. O. C. Krishnan, reported in 2001 (6) SCC 569 and Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd. v. State of bihar, reported in 1998 (8) SCC 272 . Even very recently while dealing with the case under Industrial Disputes Act, the Apex Court reiterated the said principle by holding that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be entertained when the statutory remedy is available under the Act unless any exceptional circumstances are made out. Reliance may be placed to the judgment passed in the cases Hindusthan Steel Works construction Ltd. v. Employees Union, reported in 2005 (6) SCC 725 and uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. , reported in 2007 (2) SCC 112. (5.) IT appears that the writ application was moved by the present appellant alleging, inter alia, that after expiry of the time limit of the offer letter in terms of Rule 141 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, the Regional Transport Authority, North 24Parganas granted permit in favour of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. (5.) IT appears that the writ application was moved by the present appellant alleging, inter alia, that after expiry of the time limit of the offer letter in terms of Rule 141 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, the Regional Transport Authority, North 24Parganas granted permit in favour of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. (6.) AS already discussed, relying upon the aforesaid judgments of the apex Court, as there is a statutory remedy of revision against such decision in terms of Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by filing such application by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, we are of the view that the writ application is not maintainable. (7.) HAVING regard to such, the writ application is also taken up as on days list for final hearing and on the aforesaid reasoning the writ application, appeal and stay application all stand dismissed. Let urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates appearing for the parties expeditiously.