Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 649 (CAL)

Amrul Haque Mondal v. State of West Bengal

2014-07-18

JOYMALYA BAGCHI

body2014
JUDGMENT The petitioner had applied for permit in respect of the following route: “Sutraghat to Burdwan via-Buroshibtala, Nabadwip Bus stand with convension from local to express with 1 up and 1 dn. WB 41D/6001 (B.II).” Permit was, however, granted in respect of following route: “Sutraghat to Burdwan, via-Burosibtala, Hematpur, Kusumgram, Express, 1up and 1 down.” Provisional time table in respect of the said route vide memo No.4134 M.V. dated 26.11.2013 was also issued by Secretary, R. T. A., Burdwan which is set out here-in-below in respect of the following points: Sutraghat Buroshibtala Hematpur Kusumgram Malamba Burdwan 8.30(D) 9.10/15 9.45 10.35/42 11.00/03 12.00(A) 16.28 15.48/53 15.18 14.23/28 14.03/08 13.08(D) Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the application for grant of permit was in respect of the proposed route wherein Nabadwip bus stand was a stoppage point. The decision to issue the permit by the R. T. A. was an unqualified one and, therefore, the permit and the consequential time table ought to have included Nabadwip bus stand as a stoppage point. Accordingly, he prayed such stoppage point be included in his permit and time table by the respondent authorities. Mr. Mondal, learned advocate for the respondents submits that the respondents shall consider such grievance in accordance with law. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the materials on record, I find that the proposed route applied for by the petitioner included Nabadwip bus stand as a stoppage point. The decision taken by the respondent no.2, R. T. A. Burdwan is an unqualified one and does not give any indication of disallowing such stoppage point. The respondent no.3 while issuing the permit has not included Nabadwip bus stand as a stoppage point and nor is the same included in the provisional time table. Such decision of the respondent no.3 not to allow Nabadwip bus stand as a stoppage point, however, has been taken without ascribing any reasons with regard thereto. On the other hand, the petitioner has made a representation praying for inclusion of Nabadwip bus stand as a stoppage point in his route in terms of his proposal. I am of the considered opinion that in the light of the aforesaid facts, the respondent no.3 is required to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. On the other hand, the petitioner has made a representation praying for inclusion of Nabadwip bus stand as a stoppage point in his route in terms of his proposal. I am of the considered opinion that in the light of the aforesaid facts, the respondent no.3 is required to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of by directing the respondent no.3 to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner to include Nabadwip bus stand as a stoppage point in his permit and in the provisional time table and after hearing the petitioner and all other interested parties, take a reasoned decision thereon within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. Decision, so taken, shall be communicated within two weeks thereafter. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the representation of the petitioner which shall be considered by the respondent no.3 independently and in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.