Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 558 (CAL)

Naresh Roy v. State of West Bengal

2014-06-26

JOYMALYA BAGCHI

body2014
JUDGMENT : JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J. A contract carriage permit was proposed to be issued to the petitioner in respect of modified route from Aratigram to Panchmatha More (Prantica) via Murari Sweets Milonpally Steel Co-operative pursuant to the impugned R.T.A. Board resolution dated 11.05.2003. It has been recorded in the said resolution that the petitioner consented to such modified route. The petitioner received an offer letter for grant of such permit in June, 2013 wherein the modified route was indicated. As late as on November 20, 2013 the petitioner made a representation to the respondent authority, inter alia, claiming that he had not consented to the modified route and such consent had been incorrectly recorded in the impugned resolution. In the absence of consent, grant of permit for modified route was impermissible. Accordingly he prayed for setting aside of the impugned resolution dated 11.05.2013 and reconsideration of his prayer for grant of permit for the route as prayed for in his application. Mr. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the consent had not been given by his client and that upon coming to know of the modified route from the offer letter, his client made representation to the concerned authority. He accordingly prayed for consideration of his representation and setting aside of the impugned resolution. Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the State respondents submitted that no review of the decision of the R.T.A. Board is called for in the facts of the present case. He submitted that contention of the petitioner that consent had not been given is clearly an afterthought, inasmuch as, the petitioner slept over the matter for about five months and thereafter belatedly made the representation retracting his consent. He further submitted that not only the representation was belated, there was no pleading affirmed as true to the knowledge of the petitioner to that effect. In rebuttal, Mr. Khan relied upon an unreported decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 25.07.2013 in W.P. No. 20441 (W) of 2013 where direction was given for reconsideration of the decision of R.T.A. Board on the premise that the consent had not been given for the modified route. I have considered the submission of the respective parties. Khan relied upon an unreported decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 25.07.2013 in W.P. No. 20441 (W) of 2013 where direction was given for reconsideration of the decision of R.T.A. Board on the premise that the consent had not been given for the modified route. I have considered the submission of the respective parties. I find it hard to believe that the petitioner who is a regular transport operator remained quiet for about five months before making representation to retract the consent recorded in the decision of the concerned R.T.A. The retraction is a belated one and is clearly an afterthought which merits no reconsideration. In this factual background, to remit the matter for reconsideration before the R.T.A. authority would be an empty formality and a mockery of the process of law. Each and every representation made to a statutory authority does not deserve a direction for consideration in exercise of writ jurisdiction until and unless there is a prima facie case made out for consideration of the same. It is settled law that an authority ought not to be compelled to act in vain or futility. Meaningless burdening of dockets of execution or concerned quasi-judicial authorities in the name of consideration of frivolous and unmerited representation defeat the cause of fair and efficient administration. The profile of the present case does not persuade me to pass an order for reconsideration of a consent order passed by the R.T.A. The facts of the cited case are clearly different from the present one. In the cited case the plea was promptly taken and permit had been granted to another operator to the unmodified route. No such hostile discrimination has been pointed out in this case. Hence, the cited judgement is factually distinguishable and does not come to the aid of the writ petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner making appropriate application for fresh permit in accordance with law. Needless to mention that in the event such application is made the same shall be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties as expeditiously as possible.