Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 601 (CAL)

Ranajit Mondal v. State of West Bengal

2014-07-08

JOYMALYA BAGCHI

body2014
JUDGMENT The petitioner no.1 was the holder of a stage carriage permit for route No.221 in respect of vehicle No. WB-25/2208. The petitioner no.1 being a septuagenarian wanted to transfer the vehicle and permit to his nephew, i.e., petitioner no.2. Accordingly, application was made for transfer of ownership of the vehicle and permit to the petitioner no.2. Such transfer was allowed by the respondent authorities vide sanction letter dated 22.5.2013 subject to replacement of old vehicle. In the said letter, the petitioner no.2 was directed to register the stage carriage in his favour within 30 days from the date of issue of such letter and was directed to apply for fresh route permit after getting the vehicle registered with appropriate authorities. It is claimed that petitioner No.2 took steps for replacing the vehicle and finally by letter dated 10.12.2013 addressed to the respondent No.3, Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kolkata Region sought leave to replace the old vehicle with a new one after transfer of permit. By the impugned decision dated 7.1.2014, the respondent no.2, R.T.A. Kolkata, decided to cancel the permit as well as sanction letter dated 22.5.2013 for transfer of ownership as the vehicle in question was more than 15 years old and had not been replaced. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the impugned decision was taken without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without considering his willingness to replace the old vehicle with a new one as evident from letter dated 10.12.2013. He further submitted that due to circumstances beyond his control, the petitioner no.2 was unable to replace the old vehicle with a new one in spite of best efforts. He accordingly prayed for setting aside the impugned decision dated 7.1.2014 and for a direction upon the respondent authorities to permit him to replace the old vehicle with a new one. Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior advocate for the State respondents submitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioners to replace the old vehicle. In terms of the sanction letter dated 22.5.2013, petitioner no.2 was required to register the stage carriage within 30 days from the date of its issuance. No steps were taken within the stipulated time and hence, the impugned decision was taken by the respondent Board to cancel the permit and the sanction letter was wholly justified. In terms of the sanction letter dated 22.5.2013, petitioner no.2 was required to register the stage carriage within 30 days from the date of its issuance. No steps were taken within the stipulated time and hence, the impugned decision was taken by the respondent Board to cancel the permit and the sanction letter was wholly justified. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and the materials on record. It appears that the petitioner no.1 was the owner of the old vehicle being W.B.-25/2208 in respect of which stage carriage permit had been granted in Route No.221. Petitioner no.1, being an old and ailing person, was inclined to transfer the ownership of the vehicle and permit to his nephew, i.e., petitioner no.2. In the application, the petitioner had categorically stated such reason and also expressed his eagerness to replace the old one by a new one which may be bought by the petitioner no.2 as the petitioner no.1, being an old and ailing person, was unable to arrange for funds. Bearing in mind the aforesaid circumstances, sanction letter dated 22.5.2013 was issued by the respondent no.3 subject to the replacement of the old vehicle. In the said letter petitioner no.2 was directed to register the stage carriage within 30 days from the date of issuance of such letter. It is a fact that no steps were taken and only in December, 2013, petitioner no.2 expressed his desire to replace the old vehicle by a new one. However, without considering such desire expressed by petitioner no.2 to replace the old vehicle by a new one vide letter dated 10.12.2013, the respondent R. T. A. Kolkata in its impugned decision dated 7.1.2014 decided to cancel the permit and sanction letter. Admittedly, such decision was taken without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and also without considering the desire expressed by the petitioner no.2 to replace the old vehicle by a new one in letter dated 10.12.2013. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that a last opportunity ought to be given to the petitioner no.2 to replace the old vehicle with a new one. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that a last opportunity ought to be given to the petitioner no.2 to replace the old vehicle with a new one. Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition directing that the impugned decision of R. T. A., Kolkata region dated 7.1.2014 to cancel the permit and the sanction letter as communicated by memo dated 12.2.2014 issued by the respondent no.3 shall remain suspended and the petitioner no.2 shall be at liberty to produce the new vehicle before the respondent no.3 within two months from date. In the event, petitioner no.2 produces such vehicle within the stipulated time, the respondent no.3 shall examine the same and take necessary steps for registration and transfer the permit in the name of the petitioner no.2 within two weeks from the date of presentation of the new vehicle. In the event petitioner fail to present the vehicle within the stipulated time frame, the impugned decision shall stand revived and apply with full force in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.