Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 30 (CAL)

Santosh Ghosh v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2009-01-21

JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS

body2009
JUDGMENT The Court: The petitioners in this writ petition dated August 10, 2007 are aggrieved by the decision of the District Magistrate and Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Nadia dated July 16, 2007 at and the timetable accompanying the decision. 2. By an order dated May 15, 2007 a Division Bench of this Court directed the Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority to decide the objections regarding the timetable. The impugned decision was given in purported compliance with the said Division Bench order. 3. In paras 34 and 44 of the writ petition it has been specifically alleged hat the impugned decision was given by one Ramapada Biswas who was working as the Additional District Magistrate (Gn.), Nadia, and not by the District Magistrate and Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority, Nadia. In para 23 of the opposition dated October 4, 2007 the first to fourth respondents have said that the impugned decision was given by the Additional District Magistrate, who was in-charge of the district in the absence of the District Magistrate. 4. It is therefore apparent that correctness of the allegations made by the petitioners that, the impugned decision was not given by the District Magistrate and Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority has not been disputed by the respondents. Counsel for the state has sought to justify the action by saying that in the absence of the District Magistrate and Chairman, the Additional District Magistrate in-charge of the district was competent to give the decision. 5. I am unable to accept his contention. The Division Bench of this Court gave specific direction that the decision should be given by the Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority, and not by the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate is also the Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority. This does not mean that a person in-charge of the district, not, holding the post of district magistrate substantively, becomes the Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority. 6. When the Chairman was not available, it was for the respondents concerned to approach this Court seeking appropriate directions, but the Additional District Magistrate –in-charge of the district could not usurp the power of the Chairman, unless the power was conferred on him by law. 6. When the Chairman was not available, it was for the respondents concerned to approach this Court seeking appropriate directions, but the Additional District Magistrate –in-charge of the district could not usurp the power of the Chairman, unless the power was conferred on him by law. It is curious to note that the Additional District Magistrate who gave the decision signed it describing himself as the District Magistrate and Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority, which he was not. 7. I therefore agree with Mr. Chattopadhyay that the decision has been given by an incompetent person, and hence it is, with the accompanying time table is liable to be set aside. 8. Mr. Chattopadhyay submits that since a time table cannot be granted from the middle of any route, I should direct the Chairman to consider the question of approving a timetable for the entire route. I think this question should be left for decision of the Chairman before whom the parties will be free to raise all questions for issuing an approved time table. 9. Mr. Saha, Counsel for the sixth respondent, submits that if the time table accompanying the impugned decision is set aside, the sixth respondent will not be in a position to ply his vehicle. 10. I do not think that can be the position. The time table has to be quashed, since it is the outcome of a decision given by an authority without possessing the power to give it. The consequence will be that all the permit holders will ply their respective vehicles, until a fresh decision is given by the Chairman, on the basis of the time tables which were existing before the impugned time-table was issued. 11. For these reasons, I dispose of the writ petition ordering as follows. The impugned decision and timetable are hereby set aside. The Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority is directed to give a fresh decision in the matter in terms of the division bench order dated May 15, 2007. The decision shall be given within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order, and after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the sixth respondent, and all the persons who are to be heard in terms of the Division Bench order. The decision once given shall be communicated to all concerned with the accompanying timetable. The decision shall be given within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order, and after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the sixth respondent, and all the persons who are to be heard in terms of the Division Bench order. The decision once given shall be communicated to all concerned with the accompanying timetable. There shall be no order for costs. 12. Urgent certified xerox of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties within three days from the date of receipt of the file by the section concerned. Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. : Appeal disposed of.