Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 51 (CAL)

Chapal Kumar Gayen v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2008-01-15

JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS

body2008
Judgment (1) THE petitioner in this writ petition dated February 15th, 2006 is seeking a mandamus commanding the third respondent, the Secretary, State Transport authority, West Bengal to issue a permanent stage carriage permit for the route dadan Patra Barh-Contai in terms of the offer letter dated February 16th, 2005, Annexure P1. (2) THE letter dated February 16th, 2005 was issued offering a permanent stage carriage permit for a maxicab. The petitioner claims that by an application dated March 16th, 2005 he prayed for extension of the period of validity of the offer letter by three months. He has alleged that the authority did not give any decision in the application for extension. His further case is that a Trekker purchased by him was" registered, by referring to the offer letter, by the registering authority on December 22nd, 2005 and that after purchasing and registering the vehicle he submitted a representation dated January 19th, 2006 requesting the third respondent to extend the period of validity of the offer letter dated February 16th, 2005 and issue the permit, but the authority did nothing. (3) THE respondents are contesting the writ petition. They have filed an opposition stating that there was no scope to extend the period of validity of the offer letter dated February 16th, 2005 on the basis of the representation dated 19th, 2006 and that, in any case, the petitioner purchased a Trekker, not a maxicab for which the permit was offered. (4) ACCORDING to Mr. Jana, counsel for the petitioner, the Trekker purchased by the petitioner was nothing but a maxicab, and since the respondents did not give any decision in the petitioners application dated march 16th, 2005, it should be presumed that the application remained pending and the offer letter valid. For this he has relied on an unreported Division Bench decision dated August 29th, 2007 in A.P.O. No. 477 of 2006 (State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Shri Swapan Maity). (5) MR. Khan, counsel for the State, submits that in view of the provisions of R. 141 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the Division Bench decision of this court in State of West Bengal and Ors v. Bidyut Kundu, 2008 (3) CHN 795 , there is no scope to say that the offer letter dated December 16th, 2005 is valid even today. According to him, the offer letter could remain valid for a maximum period of six months from February 16th, 2005. (6) THE provisions of R. 141 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 are as fallows: "141. Every permit must contain the Registration Mark (s) of the vehicle (s) which shall ply by virtue of the permit granted and during the period prescribed by the Transport authority granting the permit in the offer letter which shall not normally exceed one month from the date on which the offer letter is issued, the grantee must produce the documents in respect of the vehicle (s) showing that he is in possession of the vehicle (s) as -owner thereof and that the change of address of vehicle (s) concerned has been effected to within this State, if previously registered outside this State, and that the vehicle (s) is/are not covered by any kind of permit (s) : provided that the Transport Authority granting the permit may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the validity of the offer letter up, to six months from the date of issue of the same in exceptional cases." (7) THE petitioner claims that he applied for extension on March 16th, 2005. If the benefit of extension was given to him, then, in view of the provisions of R. 141, the offer letter could remain valid for six months from February 21st, 2005 when it was actually issued. Within six months from February 21st, 2005 he did not produce the vehicle and seek the permit. He purchased a vehicle only in December, 2005. Simply because it was registered by making a reference to the offer letter, it cannot be said that he acquired a right to seek extension of the period of validity of the offer letter beyond the statutory period of six months. At the date the vehicle was registered, the offer letter was not alive. Besides, he purchased a trekker, when the permit was offered for a maxicab, and he did this without obtaining any permission from the authority. (8) ON these facts I hold that by not responding to the representation dated January 19th, 2006 the respondents committed no wrong. The unreported decision relied on by Mr. Jana is of no assistance in this case. As rightly pointed out by Mr. (8) ON these facts I hold that by not responding to the representation dated January 19th, 2006 the respondents committed no wrong. The unreported decision relied on by Mr. Jana is of no assistance in this case. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Khan, in that case the application for extension of the period of validity of the offer letter could not be disposed of by the authority concerned because of an injunction made in a pending litigation by this Court. Considering this fact, their Lordships were of the view that the right of the applicant in that case to get an extension of the period of validity of the offer letter could not be defeated by the authority by referring to the period of six months mentioned in the provisions of R. 141. (9) FOR these reasons, I dismiss the writ petition. There shall be no order for costs. (10) URGENT certified xerox of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied on the parties within three days from the date of receipt of the file by the section concerned. Petition dismissed.