Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 578 (CAL)

Shankar Roy v. State of West Bengal

2014-07-02

JOYMALYA BAGCHI

body2014
Judgment : Joymalya Bagchi, J. The impugned decision dated 21st September, 2012 passed by the respondent no. 2, the Regional Transport Authority, Nadia, declining grant of permanent contract carriage permit for plying an Auto Rickshaw (L.P.G.) on the route Chakdaha to Madhanpur via Palpara, Sardnaga, Simurali Station, Bhagirathi Silpasram, Jangalgram, Marfodanga has been assailed. By the impugned decision the permit was rejected with the following observation: “Heard the applicant. After taken into consideration the road condition, conjestion of road traffic and safety and security of the passengers travelling in such 3-wheeled Auto-Rickshaw within the ambit and scope of the Motor Vehicles Act and rules framed thereunder, his application is not granted. (See notification no. 268-WT/3M-01/2010 Pt. dated 29.01.2010).” Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the order is a non-speaking one and does not disclose either to the factual foundation or the reasons in support thereof. He further submits that in respect of the same route other operators were granted permits. Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent authority, submits that there is reference to ‘road condition’, ‘congestion of road traffic’ and ‘safety and security of the passengers’ in the impugned decision and hence it cannot be said to be an unreasoned one. He further disputes the fact that in the selfsame meeting other operators were given permits in respect of the same/similar routes. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and the materials on record. It is true that in the impugned decision reference to ‘road condition’, ‘congestion of road traffic’ and ‘safety and security of the passengers’ have been recorded. It is, in fact, a mechanical chanting of the factors stated in Clause (6) of Notification No. 268-WT/3M-01/2010 Pt. dated 29th January, 2010. Clause (6) of the aforesaid Notification reads as follows: “6. Grant of 3-wheeled auto-rickshaw permit within a particular district only may, however, be considered by the concerned RTA of the district after taking into consideration the road condition, congestion of road traffic and safety and security of the passengers travelling in such 3 -Wheeled Auto Rickshaw as aforesaid, within the ambit and scope of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and rules framed thereunder. The Government in the Transport Department shall only be competent to grant any relaxation in the matter. The Government in the Transport Department shall only be competent to grant any relaxation in the matter. This order shall take immediate effect.” There is no reference to any enquiry by the respondent authority in respect of the aforesaid conclusion. No factual foundation to arrive at such conclusion is recorded in the impugned order. It is trite law that reasons are independent to the conclusion arrived at by a quasi-judicial body. It is the facts of a particular case and the reasons and/or analysis thereof which lead to the ultimate conclusion. In the instant case although the conclusion as to the existence of the factors reflected in Clause (6) of the aforesaid notification is recorded there is no reflection of application of mind of the respondent authority to the factual matrix of the case and the reasons recorded in respect thereof to come to the aforesaid conclusion. It is noted with much distress that similar mechanical orders are regularly passed by the Regional Transport Authorities while considering applications for grant of permit. Liberalized transport policy, which is the heart of the present legislation, particularly Section 80 thereof, lays down that grant of permit is the rule and rejection thereof is an exception. A duty is cast upon the Transport Authority to apply its mind to applications for grant of permit on a case to case basis and after making due enquiry and application of mind to relevant factors record cogent reasons in the event it chooses to reject the prayer for grant of permit. Spirit of the law ought to be borne in mind while considering applications under Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and requisite care and caution by recording appropriate reasons for rejection of the same be made. Mere conclusion of the Transport Authority is not enough. There must be recording of relevant primary facts and application of mind thereto as reflected by recording of cogent reasons in the order justifying rejection of permit. Reasons manifest the working of the mind of the quasi-judicial body and in its absence the bald conclusions of the authority cannot be upheld. For the aforesaid reasons, I set aside the impugned decision dated 21st September, 2012 and remand the matter to the respondent no. Reasons manifest the working of the mind of the quasi-judicial body and in its absence the bald conclusions of the authority cannot be upheld. For the aforesaid reasons, I set aside the impugned decision dated 21st September, 2012 and remand the matter to the respondent no. 2, Regional Transport Authority, Nadia, to consider the application after making due enquiry as to the relevant facts and take a decision thereon in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. Decision, so taken, shall be communicated to the writ petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter. Needless to mention, in the event respondent no. 2, Regional Transport Authority, Nadia, chooses to reject the application the same may be done after giving opportunity to the petitioner and recording cogent reasons in support thereof. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of.