JUDGMENT : Mir Dara Sheko, J. 1. The writ petitioner Amar Maji being appellant assailed the judgment of the learned Trial Judge delivered on 13th October, 2015 in W.P. No. 7086(W) of 2011 (Amar Maji Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), the operative part of which is set out:- The impugned decision of the R.T.A. holding transfer of permit bearing no. P.St. P. No. 95/87-88 on 23rd May, 2003 is accordingly sustained, not on the basis of R.T.A’s reasoning, but on the basis of reasoning disclosed in this judgment. The writ petition accordingly fails. 2. The permit for contract carriage P.Co.P.6/144/78-79 of the impugned route, after deletion name of one Gopinath Roy standing in the name of Nandalal Maji brother of the appellant and predecessor of respondent Nos. 4(a) to 4(c), was subsequently converted into special State carriage permit bearing P. St. P. 95/87-88 and the same was the subject in controversy before the Writ Court. 3. Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee learned Senior Advocate apprised us about the facts of the case. It was contended that in the route on which the vehicle WRH-59, was to ply, belonged to said Nandalal Maji, (since deceased). The appellant subsequently placed his own vehicle WB-25B/2338 for plying on the same route on the plea that the said permit was transferred in the name of the writ petitioner/appellant by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority on 23rd May, 2003 on basis of a joint application of the writ petitioner and his brother Nandalal Maji, since deceased. 4. The case of Nandalal, (since deceased), and respondent Nos. 4(a) to 4(c) was that Nandalal Maji never moved any such joint application as alleged, proposing to transfer his permit. He rather alleged, that if there been any joint application, it was created fraudulently by the writ petitioner for which one criminal complaint also was lodged by Nandalal Maji, (since deceased) against the writ petitioner and some others of Motor Vehicle office alleging offence under Sections 465/466/419/420 read with Section 120B I.P.C. Apart from sending notice to the writ petitioner revoking the power-of-attorney executed in his favour, he obtained direction of the Court in W.P. 4666(W) of 2009 to raise his dispute before the appropriate authority. 5. 5. Upon hearing the Additional District Magistrate Burdwan having restored the subject permit in the name of Nandalal Maji, by order dated 4th October, 2010, the writ petitioner having failed to obtain any interim order in W.P. 21844 (W) of 2010 filed by him, in appeal obtained the following order:- “We, therefore, accept the suggestion that the matter would be heard de novo. We set aside the order passed by the R.T.A. Board earlier holding that the same was not decided in accordance with the directions and wishes of the court. We accordingly direct the District Magistrate, Burdwan who is present in court today to constitute a Board and to give a fresh hearing in terms of the earlier order of this court. He shall consider all the things which might be produced before him and all the members including the Chairman must be present and must participate in the hearing and each of them will deliberate and they will come to a decision jointly. It is a collective deliberation of the matter. The Chairman, or for that matter, any member cannot take any decision alone. Decision making process must be reflected in the order itself recording appearance of the parties and participation of each and every members of the Board. This fresh exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from date without granting any adjournment under any circumstances except the illness of any lawyer, if represented before them. The order must be speaking one.” 6. Mr. Pantu Deb Roy representing the State/respondents supports the decision of the R.T.A which has also been sustained by learned Trial Judge. 7. Learned Advocate Mr. Sanat Kumar Roy representing the private respondents supported the impugned judgment in the Affidavit-in-reply. 8. We accordingly find that to take decision over the subject permit under the order dated 27.11.2011 of the Division Bench in A.S.T. 1747 of 2010 with A.S.T.A. 299 of 2010 the District Magistrate, Burdwan was directed to “constitute a Board and to give a fresh hearing in terms of earlier order of this Court”, as quoted in paragraph 6 above. 9. Taking note of the grounds of appeal as set down, we hold that the writ court, in the process of a writ appeal cannot reassess the merit as adjudicated by the authority on facts available from the office records. 9. Taking note of the grounds of appeal as set down, we hold that the writ court, in the process of a writ appeal cannot reassess the merit as adjudicated by the authority on facts available from the office records. Therefore, only to oversee whether the writ petitioner has been able to substantiate illegality in the decision making process causing violation of any natural justice. 10. We find that, except making assertion, the writ petitioner/appellant could not produce copy of alleged joint application or even any acknowledgment receipt showing submission of the alleged joint application before the permit transferring authority. Admittedly this joint application is also not on the records of the authority. Admittedly also criminal complaint is lodged against the writ petitioner and some others asserting the impugned transfer of permit was done fraudulently in collusion with some employees of Motor Vehicle Office. 11. Be that as, it may, we find that the Board, so constituted under order of this Court examining evidence, both oral and documentary and authentic permanent official documents held the transfer of impugned permit was illegal. The relevant penultimate unanimous findings of the Board are set out:- In the present case, the transfer of permit bearing P.St.P No. 95/87-88 had been executed by the Secretary, RTA Burdwan on 23/05/2003 without following the formal statutory procedure as well as without receipt of the requisite prescribed fees, as laid down in the Statute. Application for such transfer of permit also could not be produced and not available in office records. The RTA, Burdwan unanimously concluded that the said transfer of permit dated 23/05/2003 with respect to P.St. P. No. 95/87-88 was done in gross-violation of the M.V. Act & Rules and thereby this Board holds the view that the said order dated 23/05/2003 allowing the disputed transfer of permit is a fit case for being, declared bad in law, malafide and as such deserves to be quashed. In arriving at the said conclusion, the full RTA Board of Burdwan has not only examined & cross-examined the submissions/depositions/evidence adduced before it by both the parties, the bench has, in fact, relied upon authentic cash registers during the relevant period in question, which are permanent documents preserved by this office. The full Board of RTA Burdwan is thus satisfied that the said transfer of permit bearing P.St. The full Board of RTA Burdwan is thus satisfied that the said transfer of permit bearing P.St. P. No. 95/87-88 on 23/05/2003 was illegal in view of its having been executed in clear contravention of the statutory provisions u/s 82 of the M.V. Act, 1988 read with Rule 159 of the W.B.M.V. Rules 1989. 12. Accordingly, pursuant to said findings the Board unanimously resolved as follows:- (1) The RTA Burdwan would record its compliance before the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court, Calcutta in terms of the transfer order of the Hon’ble Court dated 27/01/2011 in A.S.T. 1747 of 2010 & A.S.T.A. 299 of 2010 through the Ld. State Advocate. The Secretary, RTA is authorized to do so. (2) The Secretary, RTA Burdwan shall communicate the decision of RTA Burdwan to the concerned petitioners viz. Sri Amar Maji & Sri Nandalal Maji. (3) Sri Amar Maji shall be informed to surrender the permit no. 95/87-88 to the office of the RTA, Burdwan on receipt of communication of this order by the RTA Burdwan, within three weeks of receipt of the order. (4) The permit bearing P.St. P No. 95/87-88 shall be transferred in the part of the Sri Nandalal Maji by the Secretary, RTA after the surrender of the said permit Sri Amar Maji to this office, within one month. Renewal of permit in Part-A & B of the permit and its use by Sri Nandalal Maji would be allowed on production of vehicle before Secretary, RTA and endorsement be done accordingly as per M.V. Act & Rules. 13. In the writ petition the appellant challenging the resolution dated 24.03.2011 prayed as follows:- a. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents and/or their men, agents or subordinates to set aside, cancel and/or quash the impugned resolution dated 24th March 2011 adopted by the Regional Transport Authority, Burdwan, as communicated vide Memo No. 817(3)/MV dated 1st April 2011, issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Burdwan, being Annexure ‘P-11’ to this writ application, as the impugned finding has been made on a wrong proposition of law relating to the fees to be deposited for transfer; 14. Learned Trial Judge denied said prayer and held:- The writ petitioner has not been able to produce any material in the form of copies of documents on the strength of which the permit was transferred. Learned Trial Judge denied said prayer and held:- The writ petitioner has not been able to produce any material in the form of copies of documents on the strength of which the permit was transferred. Admitted position is that Amar had affirmed a joint affidavit with Nandalal in which Nandalal claimed to be the owner of the original or preceding permit on a date subsequent to the alleged date of transfer. 15. Thus the very basis of transfer of the permit in dispute on an alleged joint application having remained unfounded in the proceedings, and the Board, constituted under the order of this Court, having exhausted the proceeding maintaining all norms and procedures, and having arrived at the conclusion that the disputed transfer of permit did not take place following formal procedure laid down in the statute, we do not find any legal reason to take any different stand than that of learned Trial Judge to alter the resolution dated 24th March, 2011, the judgment of the Trial Judge impugned hereby, does not suffer from any infirmity in the matter of decision making process, and the same does not bear any such special circumstance for the writ Court to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Board. 16. The stay application being CAN 11800 of 2015 stands rejected. Accordingly, CAN No. 10268 of 2016 for extension of interim order being redundant stands also disposed. 17. In view of the above there remains nothing to decide the appeal on merit, the appeal being FMA 192 of 2016, which was also heard taking as on earlier day’s list, also stands dismissed. 18. No order as to costs.