Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 452 (CAL)

Subrata Kumar Maity v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2008-04-29

KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA, PRASENJIT MANDAL

body2008
JUDGMENT: KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA, J. (1) I have had the benefit of going through the draft judgment of my learned Brother and I record my concurrence with the conclusion arrived at by His Lordship. However, I express my own views to supplement to His lordships judgment. (2) FROM the facts of both the writ petitions it appear that the controversy between the parties viz. Subrata and Gautam is whether the Orissa State authority is justified in refusing to countersign the order of renewal of permit the validity of which is upto 19th December, 2009 on the plea that the timetable attached to the permit is not in accordance with the route. It is the contention of objector, Gautam Sarangi that the timetable should be fixed in consonance with the route for which permit has been granted. It is an admitted position that the inter State carriage permit has been granted from Howrah (within West bengal) to Jaleswar (within Orissa). Major portion of the length of this route falls within the territory of State of West Bengal and a small portion falls within the territory of Orissa. It is not disputed that originally State carriage permit was issued by the West Bengal Authority on and from 20th December, 1999 and the same remained valid upto 19th December, 2004 with the same timetable attached thereto and at that time the Orissa State Authority counter-signed the same in terms of the reciprocal agreement between the two States upto 30th April, 2000 provisionally. The original timetable attached to the permit shows that the up-trip journey starts from Jaleswar at 4.20 A. M. and down-trip journey on the same day from Howrah at 13.15 P. M. and terminates at Jaleswar at 19. 50 P. M. Obviously in order to start for up-way trip Subratas vehicle had to take night halt at Jaleswar for commencing up trip journey. (3) THEREAFTER Subrata applied for counter signature upto 19th December, 2004 with aforesaid timetable to the Orissa Authority and his application was dismissed by Orissa Authority by order dated 29th July, 2002. This order was appealed against and appropriate Tribunal at Orissa held that Orissa Authority could not refuse to countersign the permit with the timings fixed by the West bengal Authority as that amounted to unilateral revocation of the agreement. The said order of the Tribunal was not challenged. This order was appealed against and appropriate Tribunal at Orissa held that Orissa Authority could not refuse to countersign the permit with the timings fixed by the West bengal Authority as that amounted to unilateral revocation of the agreement. The said order of the Tribunal was not challenged. Notwithstanding above judgment of the Tribunal the Orissa Authority by an order dated 23rd August, 2005 did not countersign the permit for the subsequent period from 20th December, 2004 till 19th December, 2005 with the same timetable fixed by the west Bengal Authority, rather requested the West Bengal Authority to re-consider and review the timings. In this matter Orissa State Authority has filed affidavit. The stand of the Orissa Authority as well as Gautam, on the question of law, is the same. They say that the timings fixed by the West Bengal Authority is not in consonance with the provision of Section 70 sub Section (2) Clause (iv). According to them, Subratas vehicle should take night halt at Howrah as the route mentioned in the permit is very clear that journey must start from howrah to Jaleswar and not vice versa. Going by the definition of the route in section 2 (38) of the Act length of journey from Howrah to Jaleswar is a route, therefore, in conformity therewith the vehicle would start from Howrah for journey towards Jaleswar and on the same day Subrata must come back with his vehicle to Howrah in the evening and should take night halt at Howrah and/ or within the territory of West Bengal. Gautam, in his writ petition, has prayed for writ of mandamus asking the State of West Bengal to change the timings of subratas vehicle in consonance with the route mentioned in the permit. I, while sitting singly in that matter, at the ad interim stage, directed the State of west Bengal to consider this case of the Gautam upon hearing the relevant persons. We do not know whether it has been heard by the State of West bengal by this time or not. Nothing has been produced before us as to what is the position. In the meantime both the matters went before the learned Single judge, Indira Banerjee. Before His Lordship, the point was taken by both the parties that the route is the pre-dominant part of the permit. Nothing has been produced before us as to what is the position. In the meantime both the matters went before the learned Single judge, Indira Banerjee. Before His Lordship, the point was taken by both the parties that the route is the pre-dominant part of the permit. On this point a judgment of another learned Single Judge, Aniruddha Bose was placed. His lordship, Bose, J., while deciding the matter in W. P. No. 15879 (W) of 2004 (Sk. Nizamuddin and Am. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.) was of the opinion that the transport authority has no power to fix timetable aiming at alter the point of origin and end mentioned specifically in the permit. Justice Banerjee could not subscribe to the aforesaid views, hence, the matter is referred to this bench. After hearing the parties and considering the material placed before us we do not think that the aforesaid point needs to be decided in this case at least as the facts and circumstances do not permit us to lay down the the proposition of law as it was felt by Indira Banerjee, J either agreeing or disagreeing the views of Bose, J. Before we express my opinion I should deal with the argument advanced by both the parties. (4) MR. Ashok De, learned Senior Counsel, submits in substance that this is a case of permit for stage carriage between the State of West Bengal and Orissa. There has been a reciprocal agreement between the two States. The State of West Bengal is the permit issuing authority and in exercise of its statutory power has fixed timetable and the same is required as a condition of grant of permit. He says that once such permit is issued attaching timetable, the Orissa State Authority is obliged to countersign it and it has been done so in past. The permission granted by West Bengal Authority will be deemed to be an incidental power. In this connection he has referred to a decision of the supreme Court reported in (1987)3 SCC 82 (Khargram Panchayat Samiti and anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.). Moreover, if there is any dispute in respect of the timetable for stage carriage permit on a route or area the decision of the transport authority granting that permit is final. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.). Moreover, if there is any dispute in respect of the timetable for stage carriage permit on a route or area the decision of the transport authority granting that permit is final. In view of the aforesaid position of law only the State of West Bengals views is final and Orissa Authority has no option but to countersign it under reciprocal agreement. Moreover, aforesaid issues regarding refusal to countersign has been decided by the orissa State Transport Appellate Tribunal, in M.V. Appeal No. 17 of 2002. He says that this issue is no longer a res integra. He further contends that in the reciprocal transport agreement between the State of Orissa and State of West bengal dated 15th December, 1995 there is no provision for mandatory night halt at the point of origin. (5) MR. Arabinda Chatterjee, appearing on behalf of Subrata contends that this Court has no jurisdiction as the order of refusal has been passed by the Orissa Authority and whole cause of action has arisen outside the territorial limit of this Honble Court. On the question of territorial jurisdiction we are of the view that this Court has jurisdiction as the part of cause of action has arisen within the territory of the State as the West Bengal Authority had issued permit fixing the timetable. Unless there has been a permit initially being issued question of countersigning cannot and does not arise. Naturally, refusal thereof also did not arise. According to us, part cause of action in this case constitutes issue of permit and the remaining part is refusal to countersign. So refusal part had obviously arisen outside the territorial limit. Going by the provision of Article 226 Clause (2) of the Constitution of India this Court has jurisdiction irrespective of place and office of the State Authority of Orissa. (6) MR. Arabinda Chatterjee, then contends that the order of refusal is an appealable one under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and subrata should have preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order. Appellate provision has an alternative remedy and this alternative remedy is not a bar rather is a ground for exercising discretion not to entertain a writ petition. Arabinda Chatterjee, then contends that the order of refusal is an appealable one under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and subrata should have preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order. Appellate provision has an alternative remedy and this alternative remedy is not a bar rather is a ground for exercising discretion not to entertain a writ petition. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that discretion should not be exercised in refusing to entertain both the writ petitions as the question would arise if appeal is preferred before the appellate authority, whether State of West Bengal is competent to unilaterally keep the earlier timings intact or not. Therefore, considering balance of convenience and the legal issues involved the High Court should entertain the writ petition and such an issue cannot be left with the decision of the Tribunal. So the plea of alternative remedy raised by Mr. Chatterjee is, thus, overruled. (7) WE think, in this case, as we have already observed that we need not decide the issue whether the time schedule fixed along with the permit should follow the route. In this connection, of course, the judgment of the Honble justice Bose and the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Karnataka High court have been dealt with. We do not think this issue is not in controversy in this matter on the facts and circumstances of this case. According to us, this issue was raised earlier by Orissa State Authority and it in our view has been decided by the appropriate Tribunal at Orissa expressly that in a reciprocal agreement the Orissa State Authority cannot unilaterally change or revoke the timings fixed by the West Bengal Authority which is the permit issuing authority. The aforesaid decision was not appealed against and the same has reached its finality though it was decided for a different period. The Orissa Authority subsequently, in our view, by the impugned order dated 23rd August, 2005 cannot legitimately ignore the aforesaid decision on the plea of different period. Moreover, admittedly it is recorded that Orissa Authority has, in past, provisionally accepted the timetable. No one has shown the agreement nor it is said anywhere, by any of the parties, that there has been a provision authorizing Orissa State Authority to take a different stand from that taken by the West Bengal Authority. Moreover, admittedly it is recorded that Orissa Authority has, in past, provisionally accepted the timetable. No one has shown the agreement nor it is said anywhere, by any of the parties, that there has been a provision authorizing Orissa State Authority to take a different stand from that taken by the West Bengal Authority. In the Motor Vehicles Act, nowhere it has been specifically provided the method of fixing timetable. Upon plain reading of section 70 sub-Section (2) Clause (iv) it appears that the only condition is that the timetable of stage carriage permit approved by the Regional Transport authority shall be exhibited on the vehicles at the specified stands and within the route and area. The timetable has to be fixed mandatorily following the route. It is the discretion of the route permitting authority which is the State of west Bengal here how the timetable would be fixed. No doubt the permit, without any time schedule, is meaningless. In case of reciprocal agreement there must be a comity between the two States, to be maintained that permit issued by one State shall not ordinarily be refused to be countersigned unless there is a flagrant violation of mandatory provision of law. It is an understanding of agreement between the parties and this cannot be upset unilaterally by another State. The decision rendered by the Orissa Tribunal as we have already observed has reached its finality. Thus, the point raised by Mr. Arabinda chatterjees client and the Orissa Authority are hit by the principles of res judicata. (8) BUT at the same time, if it is found factually that the operators of this route, on the alignment of the routes are suffering prejudicially certainly the permit issuing authority viz. State of West Bengal is to consider this aspect. It appears to us, that the renewal period is to expire in 2009. So we do not think any change is to be made in the time schedule fixed by the State of West bengal and granted for this period. We set aside the order passed on 23rd august, 2005 by the Orissa Authority, and at the same time we direct the West bengal Authority to consider the objection of Mr. So we do not think any change is to be made in the time schedule fixed by the State of West bengal and granted for this period. We set aside the order passed on 23rd august, 2005 by the Orissa Authority, and at the same time we direct the West bengal Authority to consider the objection of Mr. Chatterjees clients in terms of the order passed by one of us (Sengupta, J.) while sitting singly and after hearing both the parties and also other persons the State of West Bengal will change and/or follow the time schedule. Such decision is to be taken by the state authority by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. The decision cited by Mr. De is not required to be considered as the facts and circumstances of this case do not need assistance of the aforesaid judgement of the Supreme Court. The rule quoted by Mr. De does not apply in this case as it is an intra-State stage carriage permit. Mandal, J. (9) THE Writ Petition No. 10761 (W) of 2005 is directed against the order dated 31. 01. 2005 passed by the State Commissioner-cum-Chairman of the State Transport Authority, Orissa, (hereinafter referred to as Orissa authority) thereby refusing to countersign the permit issued by the State transport Authority, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to West Bengal Authority). (10) THE facts of this writ petition are that the writ petitioner was granted a permanent state carriage permit from Howrah to Jaleswar via. Contai with effect from 20.12.1999 and the permit was valid upto 19.12.2004. The said permit was granted by the State Transport Authority, West Bengal and duly countersigned by the State Transport Authority, Orissa with approval of the time table as per reciprocal transport agreement. According to time table, the writ petitioner was to ply his vehicle as up trip from Jaleswar at 04. 20 hours and terminate at Howrah at 10.55 hours and the down trip from Howrah at 13. 15 hours to Jaleswar at 19. 50 hours, meaning thereby night halt at Jaleswar. Earlier by an order dated 29. 07. 2002 Orissa Authority, rejected the prayer of the writ petitioner to allow him to make the night halt at Jaleswar. 20 hours and terminate at Howrah at 10.55 hours and the down trip from Howrah at 13. 15 hours to Jaleswar at 19. 50 hours, meaning thereby night halt at Jaleswar. Earlier by an order dated 29. 07. 2002 Orissa Authority, rejected the prayer of the writ petitioner to allow him to make the night halt at Jaleswar. The writ petitioner preferred appeal therefrom before the State Transport Appellate tribunal, Orissa at Cuttack and the Tribunal allowed the said appeal and set aside the said order dated 29. 07. 2002. Thereafter, West Bengal Authority renewed the permit maintaining same time table for a further period of five years upto 19.12.2009 and the said permit was placed before the Orissa authority, for counter-signature for renewal of the same as per reciprocal transport agreement between the two States. But the Orissa Authority by his order dated 31. 01. 2005 refused to countersign the said permit on the ground that the vehicle of the writ petitioner might get a night halt at Howrah or elsewhere in West Bengal. Thereafter, West Bengal Authority requested counterpart Orissa to countersign the said permit again in vain as per reciprocal transport agreement. So the writ petitioner, Subrata has filed the writ application 10761 (W) of 2005. (11) THE respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are contesting the said writ application contending, inter alia, that the respondent No. 2 issued the permit in favour of the writ petitioner from 20.12.1999 to 19.12.2004 on the inter-State route from howrah to Jaleswar. But the State West Bengal Authority granted the time schedule which is contrary to the route of Howrah to Jaleswar. The fixation of time schedule is a condition of the permit and such time schedule should be in consonance with the permit issued in favour of the writ petitioner. As the west Bengal Authority had issued the time schedule in favour of the writ petitioner in the reverse direction, Orissa Authority was not in a position to countersign the same. The attention of the respondent No. 2 was drawn by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to this matter with a request to revise the time schedule so that the vehicle of the writ petitioner would start its journey in accordance with the permit. Thereafter the Orissa Authority requested the State Transport authority, West Bengal again to change time schedule but West Bengal authority remained silent over the matter. 4 and 5 to this matter with a request to revise the time schedule so that the vehicle of the writ petitioner would start its journey in accordance with the permit. Thereafter the Orissa Authority requested the State Transport authority, West Bengal again to change time schedule but West Bengal authority remained silent over the matter. The order dated 29.07.2002 passed by the respondent No. 4 regarding night halt of the vehicle of the petitioner and the judgment dated 03.04.2003 passed by the State Transport Appellate tribunal, Orissa are confined to the permit ending on 19.12.2004. But West bengal Authority has committed irregularity again in renewing the permit and granting time schedule contrary to the route. The Orissa Authority did not want to commit similar irregularity by revising time table of the petitioner unilaterally as pointed out by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Orissa. So it is not a fact that the State Transport Authority, Orissa did not take any step in the matter. If the writ petitioner is at all aggrieved by the order of the State Transport authority, Orissa he could have approached the State Transport Appellate tribunal, Orissa under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being an alternative remedy. The writ application is thus not maintainable. So the writ petitioner is not entitled to get any relief. (12) IN this writ petition, one Goutam Kumar Sarangi, being the petitioner in the writ petition No. 9722 (W) of 2005 was not made a party. He has filed the said writ petition separately. In his writ petition his grievance is that the time table for plying the vehicle by Sri Subrata Kumar Maity of W.P. No. 10761 (W) of 2005 leaves a gap of five minutes in the departure time from the point Contai to Jaleswar on the route from Paradweep to Contai. The common bus route for the two vehicles is from Contai to Jaleswar. Both the buses render express services and so the minimum gap between the two vehicles should be at least 45 minutes to one hour. This being the position, the State Transport Authorities are to issue fresh time tables. The common bus route for the two vehicles is from Contai to Jaleswar. Both the buses render express services and so the minimum gap between the two vehicles should be at least 45 minutes to one hour. This being the position, the State Transport Authorities are to issue fresh time tables. By reason of near coinciding timing, the Orissa authority did not countersign the permit as it does not approve of the time table fixed by the State Transport Authority, West Bengal in respect of the vehicle of Sri Subrata Kumar Maity, writ petitioner of W.P. No. 10761 (W) of 2005. So Sri Goutam Kumar Sarangi filed the Writ-Petition No. 9722 (W) of 2005 for direction upon West Bengal Authority to change time schedule issued in favour of Sri Subrata Kumar Maity. (13) THE writ petitioner, Sri Sarangi, has made Sri Maity as respondent no. 6 in his writ petition. (14) SINCE the two writ petitions involve common question of fact and law, they were heard analogously by common judgment. However, the learned single Judge could not dispose of the matter rather referred to a Division Bench for decision in view of the fact that the learned Single Judge could not agree with the decision of another learned Single Judge in the case of W.P. 15546 (W) of 2004 (Sri Raghu Transport Company and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.) Thus these two matter since being assigned, came up before us for hearing and decision. (15) HAVING considered the submissions of the learned Advocates of both the sides and on going through the entire record of the two writ petitions, we find that it is an admitted position that as per reciprocal transport agreement made between the West Bengal Authority and Orissa Authority the West Bengal authority issued a permanent Stage Carriage permit in favour of Sri Subrata kumar Maity on 20th December, 1999 for a period of five years ending 19th december, 2004. The time table for plying the vehicle was from Jaleswar at 4.20 hours to Howrah at 10.55 hours in the up trip, and from Howrah at 13.15 hours to Jaleswar at 19.50 hours as the down trip. The said permit was countersigned by the Orissa Authority. The time table fixed by the West Benqal authority was also approved of by Orissa Authority. The said permit was countersigned by the Orissa Authority. The time table fixed by the West Benqal authority was also approved of by Orissa Authority. It is an admitted fact that the vehicle of Sri Maity completes one up trip and one down trip per day. But the up trip has been approved from Jaleswar to Howrah and the down trip from howrah to Jaleswar. We find that the length of the route of Sri Maity is over 215 kilometers and out of which 195 kilometers are in West Bengal and only 20 kilometers are covered in Orissa by the said route. The time table clearly indicates that the vehicle of Sri Subrata is to make night halt at Jaleswar and not at Howrah or elsewhere in West Bengal. It is an admitted position that thereafter Sri Subrata approached Orissa Authority for re-consideration of its order of making the night halt at Howrah. Orissa Authority, however, declined to reconsider. He then preferred appeal being M. V. Appeal No. 17 of 2002 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Orissa against order dated 29th july, 2002. The appeal was allowed by an order dated 4th March, 2003 setting aside the order dated 29. 07. 2002 of the Orissa Authority. No challenge was made against the said order dated 3rd April, 2003. Thus, we find that the said order dated 03. 04. 2003 in M. V. Appeal No. 17 of 2002 passed by the State transport Appellate Tribunal, Orissa, had reached its finality and it is, therefore, binding upon the State Transport Authority, Orissa. (16) AS per terms of the reciprocal transport agreement made between the two States and the judgment and order of the State Transport Appellate tribunal, Orissa Authority is obliged to countersign the permit issued by the west Bengal Authority in favour of Sri Subrata. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the writ petitioner, Sri Goutam Kumar Sarangi, has contended that as the bus route of Sri Subrata Kumar Maity covers most part of West Bengal leaving only 20 kilometers in the State of Orissa and as the permit issued by the West bengal Authority in favour of Sri Maity describes the route from Howrah to jaleswar. the vehicle of Sri Subrata Kumar Maity must be made night halt in howrah or any part of West Bengal. the vehicle of Sri Subrata Kumar Maity must be made night halt in howrah or any part of West Bengal. He has also contended that as the two bus routes of Sri Subrata Kumar Maity and Sri Goutam Sarangi are common for the route covering from Contai to Jaleswar, the time gap of 5 minutes between the two express buses at Contai towards Jaleswar is not at all a healthy competition between the two buses; so according to the permit issued in favour of Sri Subrata Kumar Maity mentioning the starting point from Howrah, west Bengal, the time table in respect of the bus route of Sri Maity should be changed. (17) HAVING considered the relevant terms of the reciprocal transport agreement and the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 03. 04. 2003, we are of the view that the reciprocal terms of the transport agreement do not lay down condition specifically that the vehicle of Sri Subrata should halt at night at Howrah or elsewhere in West Bengal. It is pertinent to mention that Sri Subrata has been plying his vehicle in the route from Howrah to Jaleswar since 2000. On the other hand, there is no other competitor in the said route, though the Orissa Authority has sanctioned the permanent Stage carriage permits in the route from Jaleswar to Howrah. Therefore, the bus service of Sri Maity is the only conveyance to carry the people who intend to come to Kolkata from the adjoining areas of Jaleswar. Sri Sarangi plies his vehicle from Paradwip to Contai. There is no clash between the two vehicles of Maity and Sarangi, while they travel from Jaleswar to Contai but there is a time gap of 5 minutes only when they start from Contai towards Jaleswar. Slight overlapping of timings of the two writ petitioners concern the portion from Contai to Jaleswar only. The two routes die completely different. (18) IT is contended on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 of the writ petition No. 10761 (W) of 2005 that the judgment of the State Transport appellate Tribunal, Orissa in M. V. Appeal No. 17 of 2002 is valid only upto 19.12.2004. The said judgment nowhere declares that the judgment will be effective upto 19.12.2004 only and so such contention, we hold, cannot be accepted. 4 and 5 of the writ petition No. 10761 (W) of 2005 that the judgment of the State Transport appellate Tribunal, Orissa in M. V. Appeal No. 17 of 2002 is valid only upto 19.12.2004. The said judgment nowhere declares that the judgment will be effective upto 19.12.2004 only and so such contention, we hold, cannot be accepted. In order to make the permit effective, the counter-signature by the orissa Authority is a must. However, the West Bengal Authority renewed the permit of the writ petitioner, Sri Maity, upto 19.12.2009, The Orissa Authority by its order dated 23.08.2005 without counter-singing requested State Transport authority, West Bengal to modify the timing of the said permit so that the vehicle would start from Howrah and terminate at Howrah as per the route mentioned in the permit. (19) WE are of the view that since judgment and order dated 03.04.2003 of the M. V. Appeal No. 17 of 2002 having attained its finality, STA, Orissa cannot raise any objection to counter-signing or to put forward counter condition particularly when this point has been settled by quasi judicial authority and particularly when in past this arrangement has been accepted by it. (20) ON the question of jurisdiction we hold that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain both writ petitions, as part of course of action has arisen within territorial limit of this Court by reason of the fact that the permit in question in any inter-State one and it was issued by STA, West Bengal. (21) MR. Dey, learned Advocate for the writ petitioner, Sri Subrata Kumar maity, has submitted before us that the importance of the public convenience is to be taken into account in deciding time table. Generally, the people come to Kolkata in day time and after performing their engagements/duties they are to return back to their respective native places and that is why the time table of the express bus service of Sri Subrata was made from Jaleswar to Howrah as up trip and Howrah to Jaleswar as down trip. Though the learned Advocate for sri Sarangi did not agree on the importance of such public convenience at all, on the pretext that it is not a case of public interest, we hold that such submission of Mr. Dey cannot be ignored at all. Though the learned Advocate for sri Sarangi did not agree on the importance of such public convenience at all, on the pretext that it is not a case of public interest, we hold that such submission of Mr. Dey cannot be ignored at all. The flow of the passengers coming from the remote place such as Jaleswar, Digha, Contai, Mecheda to Kolkata gets its importance during the day time and so the up trip and down trip have been fixed by the West Bengal Authority in such a fashion and the time table of such up trip and down trip was also approved of by the Orissa Authority previously by its order dated 28.04.2000. (22) WHEN the State Transport Authority, Orissa raised objection against time table and passed its order dated 23.08.2005 subsequently, the State transport Authority, West Bengal is bound to consider such objection. (23) IN the circumstances, we hold that the Orissa Authority is under an obligation to countersign the renewal of the permanent Stage Carriage permit of Sri Maity upto 19.12. 2009 under the above condition. Accordingly, the W.P. No. 10761 (W) of 2005 succeeds. It is allowed. (24) THE respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are also restrained from giving effect and/or further effect to the order dated 31.01.2005 passed by the Transport commissioner cum-Chairman, State Transport Authority, Orissa. We make it clear that this renewal is in respect of the permit of the vehicle of Sri Maity upto 19.12.2009 only. However objection raised by Goutam shall be considered in terms of the order of His Lordship Justice Sengupta passed earlier. Considering the circumstances, there will he no order as to costs.