Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 22 (CAL)

Sadhu Charan Mahanti v. State

2015-01-14

DEBASISH KAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Debasish Kar Gupta, J. Let the affidavit of service be kept on record. 2. This writ application is directed against a resolution (serial no.89) adopted in the meeting of the respondent no.2 on July 26, 2011. The above resolution was adopted rejecting the application of the petitioner for granting contract carriage permit in his favour for plying his vehicle (Auto Rickshaw) on the route from South Chandmari to Modhanpur Station via Beltala, Iswaripur, Alipur. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties as also after considering the fact and circumstances of this case, I find that the ground for rejecting the above application was that the solvency of the petitioner had not been established. 4. The procedure for granting contract carriage permit is prescribed in Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act, 1988). The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 74 of the said Act, 1988 are relevant for deciding the issue involved in this writ application and the same is quoted below :- 74. Grant of contract carriage permit (2) The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a contract carriage permit, may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions, namely:- (i) that the vehicles shall be used only in a specified area or on a specified route or routes; (ii) that except in accordance with specified conditions, no contract of hiring, other than an extension or modification of a subsisting contract, may be entered into outside the specified area; (iii) the maximum number of passengers and the maximum weight of luggage that may be carried on the vehicles, either generally or on specified occasions or at specified times and seasons; (iv) the conditions subject to which goods may be carried in any contract carriage in addition to, or to the exclusion of, passengers; (v) that, in the case of motorcabs, specified fares or rates of fares shall be charged and a copy of the fare table shall be exhibited on the vehicle; (vi) that, in the case of vehicles other than motorcabs, specified rates of hiring not exceeding specified maximum shall be charged. (vii) That in the case of motorcabs, a specified weight of passengers' luggage shall be carried free of charge, and that the charge, if any, for any luggage in excess thereof shall be at a specified rate; (viii) That, in the case of motorcabs, a taximeter shall be fitted and maintained in proper working order, if prescribed; (ix) that the Regional Transport Authority may, after giving notice of not less than one month,- (a) vary the conditions of the permit; (b) attach to the permit further conditions; (x) that the conditions of permit shall not be departed from save with the approval of the Regional Transport Authority; (xi) that specified standards of comfort and cleanlines shall be maintained in the vehicles; (xii) that, except in the circumstances of exceptional nature, the plying of the vehicle or carrying of the passengers shall not be refused; (xiii) any other conditions which may be prescribed. 5. After considering the aforesaid provisions, I do not find that there is any condition to consider solvency of an applicant for granting contract carriage permit. 6. It is the proposition of law that when a power is given by the statute to do certain thing in certain way, it must be done in that way and other modes of performances are forbidden. Reference may be made to the decision of Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor reported in AIR 1936 PC 253 at page 27. 7. The principles of law has been adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Reference may be made to the decision of CIT v. Anjum MH Gahaswala reported in (2002) SCC 633 and the relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below :- "27. Then it is to be seen that the Act requires the Board to exercise the power under Section 119 in a particular manner i.e. by way of issuance of orders, instructions and directions. These orders, instructions and directions are meant to be issued to other income tax authorities for proper administration of the Act. The Commission while exercising its quashi-judicial power of arriving at a settlement under Section 245-D cannot have the administrative power of issuing directions to other income tax authorities. These orders, instructions and directions are meant to be issued to other income tax authorities for proper administration of the Act. The Commission while exercising its quashi-judicial power of arriving at a settlement under Section 245-D cannot have the administrative power of issuing directions to other income tax authorities. It is a normal rule of construction that when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statute itself. If that be so, since the Commission cannot exercise the power of relaxation found in Section 119(2)(a) in the manner provided therein it cannot invoke that power under Section 119(2)(a) to exercise the same in its judicial proceedings by following a procedure contrary to that provided in sub-section (2) of Section 119." 8. In view of the above settled principles of law, this Court is of the opinion that the application of the petitioner was rejected on a ground which is not sustainable in law in the light of provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 74 of the said Act, 1988. 9. The above resolution is quashed and set aside. 10. The respondent no.2 is directed to dispose of the application of the petitioner taking into consideration the above observations within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. 11. This writ petition stands disposed of. 12. There will be, however, no order as to costs. 13. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.