Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 101 (CAL)

Mahabir Prasad Saroagi v. State of West Bengal

2016-02-01

SUBRATA TALUKDAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : By order dated 20th January, 2016 this Court was pleased to take notice of the submission of Sri Sattwik Bhattacharya, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 11 to the effect that vide Memo dated 13th August, 2015 issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, (for short RTA), Dakshin Dinajpur the permit issued in favour of the respondent No. 11 on the basis of the resolution of the said RTA dated 23rd May, 2015 on the route Hili to Balurghat via Trimohini stood temporarily suspended until further orders to be passed by this Court. Today Sri Manoj Kr. Mondal, learned Advocate led by Sri Sattwik Bhattacharya, learned Counsel appears in support of CAN 982 of 2016 in connection with W.P. 11477(W) of 2015 which is an application for clarification of the order of this Court dated 7th August, 2015 in the writ petition being W.P. 11477(W) of 2015. Copy of the application being CAN 982 of 2016 has been served on learned Counsel for the other sides and is taken up for consideration by treating it as on the day’s list. It is, inter alia, pleaded by the respondent No. 11 in CAN 982 of 2016 that for the route Hili to Balurghat, permit No. Pstp 161/15 was issued by the RTA, Dakshin Dinajpur vide its resolution dated 23rd May, 2015 and thereafter such permit was followed up by a time table in favour of the respondent No. 11 issued on 7th August, 2015. It is further submitted that the vehicle in respect of the said permit was registered on 6th August, 2015. Therefore, the respondent No. 11 makes the point that while the order dated 7th August, 2015 of this Hon’ble Court restrained the respondent – RTA, Dakshin Dinajpur from taking any further steps on the basis of its resolutions in respect of the route in issue, in view of the fact that the formalities connected to the permit No. Pstp 161/15 qua the respondent No.11 stood completed on or before the date of the order, i.e. 7th August, 2015, the Secretary, RTA, Dakshin Dinajpur erroneously directed the respondent No. 11 to surrender the permit as a temporary measure until further orders passed by this Court. Sri Mondal argues that as a consequence of the order dated 13th August, 2015 (supra) the brand new bus of the respondent No.11 is forced to be kept idle for no fault of his and, the permit as well as the time table granted by the RTA, Dakshin Dinajpur precedes and/or coincides with the date of the order dated 7th August, 2015. Therefore, Sri Mondal argues that the permit is not covered under the terms of the order dated 7th August, 2015 and the Secretary, RTA, Dakshin Dinajpur be directed to rescind his Memo dated 13th August, 2015 calling upon the respondent No. 11 to surrender the permit as a temporary basis. Sri Arabinda Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel appears for the petitioner and submits that the matter is fixed for hearing on 10th February, 2016 and, no order need be passed which touches on the solemnity of the order dated 7th August, 2015. Sri Amal Kumar Sen, learned Senior Government Advocate appears for the State-respondents. Having heard the parties and considering the pleadings in CAN 982 of 2016 (supra), this Court is satisfied that the formalities connected to permit No. 161 of 2015 including registration of the vehicle as well as the grant of the time table either precede or coincide with the date of this Court’s order dated 7th August, 2015. In the said facts and circumstances and in the light of the above noted discussion the Secretary, RTA, Dakshin Dinajpur is directed to revisit his decision as communicated to the respondent No. 11 dated 13th August, 2015 and issue appropriate orders expeditiously. Let W.P. No. 11477(W) of 2015 appear for final hearing as earlier directed by order dated 20th January, 2016 under the heading ‘For Orders’ (Part-heard) on 10th February, 2016. CAN 982 of 2016 stands accordingly disposed of. Before parting with this case this Court notices the averments made in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of CAN 982 of 2016. The averments which are directed against the erstwhile learned Counsel for the respondent No. 11, who appeared before this Court on previous dates, is not appreciated. Such averments also do not give an opportunity to erstwhile learned Counsel for the respondent No. 11 to defend himself against such insinuation. Accordingly, the averments made in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 are not taken cognizance of and struck down. Such averments also do not give an opportunity to erstwhile learned Counsel for the respondent No. 11 to defend himself against such insinuation. Accordingly, the averments made in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 are not taken cognizance of and struck down. This Court expects that learned Counsel for the petitioner will desist in future from making such personal allegations without giving opportunity to the person against whom such allegations are made to controvert the same. Let a plain photocopy of this order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be given to the learned advocate for the parties on usual undertakings.