Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 947 (CAL)

Mita Ghosh v. State of West Bengal

2012-10-12

JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS

body2012
ORDER The Court : The petitioner in this W.P. under Art. 226 of the Constitution dated May 17, 2012 is questioning a decision of the State Transport Authority, West Bengal dated November 9, 2011 (WP p. 41) and seeking a mandamus commanding the STA to issue a permit without insisting on her complying with the conditions mentioned in the decision. 2. The petitioner submitted an application dated February 25, 2003 for the grant of a permanent stage carriage permit for the inter-regional-route Balarampur to Kolkata. By a decision dated January 13, 2004 the STA decided to grant her a permanent stage carriage permit for the route. Accordingly, the Deputy Secretary of the STA issued an offer letter dated January 22/29, 2004 (W.P. p.23). 3. The offer letter January 22/29, 2004 was issued by the STA in the discharge of its statutory obligation created by R. 141 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. It was mentioned that the offer would remain valid for 30 days from the date of receipt thereof. In view of the provisions of R. 141, the life of the offer could be extended by the STA upto six months. 4. The case of the petitioner is this. She complied with the terms and conditions of the offer letter, but the STA did not issue the permit. She submitted representations. The Deputy Secretary of the STA wrote a letter dated March 14, 2011 asking her to produce documents that she had complied with the terms and conditions of the offer within its life. She produced evidence, and then the STA gave the impugned decision. 5. The decision of the STA dated November 9, 2011 is quoted below : It was found that on examination of records that the petitioner was issued with offer letter in January 2004 but no permit was issued. Applicant stated that she submitted required documents in compliance with the O/L but the permit was not issued. From the office records it appeared that the petitioner submitted required documents but somehow the permit was not issued inadvertently. After detailed discussion and examining the records it was considered by the STA that the application was received on 25-2-2003 and O/L was issued on 22-1-2004. From the office records it appeared that the petitioner submitted required documents but somehow the permit was not issued inadvertently. After detailed discussion and examining the records it was considered by the STA that the application was received on 25-2-2003 and O/L was issued on 22-1-2004. At that material point of time no restriction within the areas CBD was in existence and therefore STA decided to grant the permit in favour of the petitioner subject to placement of BS-IV compliant bus registered in the name of the petitioner. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has argued as follows. The conditions mentioned in the impugned decision dated November 9, 2011 are contrary to the terms and conditions of the offer letter dated January 22/29, 2004. Since the petitioner was not at fault, the STA was under a statutory obligation to issue the permit according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the offer letter dated January 22/29, 2004. 7. The question is whether the petitioner was entitled to call upon the STA to issue the permit on the basis of the offer letter dated January 22/29, 2004. 8. The offer letter dated January 22/29, 2004 was issued in the discharge of a statutory obligation of the STA that was to enforce its own decision dated January 13, 2004 to grant the petitioner a permanent stage carriage permit for the route mentioned in her application dated February 25, 2003. The life of the offer was a statutory one, and it could not remain alive beyond six months from the date the permit was granted. This is the position created by R. 141. 9. Rule 141 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 is quoted below : 141. The life of the offer was a statutory one, and it could not remain alive beyond six months from the date the permit was granted. This is the position created by R. 141. 9. Rule 141 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 is quoted below : 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 the change of address of vehicle(s) concerned has been effected 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 allow time up to a limit of four months in respect of a grantee under the Additional Employment Pro-gramme or an Ex-Serviceman: Provided further that the Transport Authority granting the permit may for reasons to be recorded in writing relax the conditions as to possession by ownership for such period as it might consider reasonable but in any case not beyond six months from the date on which the permit is granted. In such contingency, also, the condition as regards transfer or change of address shall not be relaxable. 10. There is nothing to show that within the statutory life of the offer any decision was taken by the STA to issue the permit. I find no reason to accept the case that representations, if any, made by the petitioner from time to time kept the offer alive, or that the decision of the STA dated November 9, 2011 shows that the offer is still alive. 11. Representations, if any, made by the petitioner from time to time could not keep the offer alive beyond six months from the date the permit was granted. The decision dated November 9, 2011 is without jurisdiction; for no law empowered the STA to enforce the offer after expiration of six months from January 13, 2004 when it granted the permit. Hence the order dated November 9, 2011 could not create any right of the petitioner. The decision dated November 9, 2011 is without jurisdiction; for no law empowered the STA to enforce the offer after expiration of six months from January 13, 2004 when it granted the permit. Hence the order dated November 9, 2011 could not create any right of the petitioner. It is just a nullity. 12. Since the offer dated January 22/29, 2004 could not remain alive beyond six months from the date the permit was granted, even if the STA had wrongfully withheld the permit, it was for the petitioner to enforce her legsl right created by the offer within the statutory life of the offer. She having not enforced her right created by the offer that, according to her, she had duly accepted, it is to be presumed that she consciously abandoned the right. 13. No provision of law entitled her to enforce the offer after expiration of the statutory life of the offer. The statutory life of the offer is of great importance and significance, because, inter alia, for environmental imperatives the law on motor vehicles changes, and has in effect been changing, very rapidly. The law that existed at the date the permit was granted was not the law at the date the STA decide to accept her request to act on the offer; it is evident from the decision itself. 14. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from the Writ Court. 15. For these reasons, I dismiss the W.P. Nothing herein shall prevent the petitioner from submitting a fresh application for the grant of a stage carriage permit for the route in question, if she is otherwise entitled to apply. No costs. Certified xerox. Petition dismissed.