Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 776 (CAL)

Ashis Kumar Goswami v. State Transport Authority

2019-08-02

SUBRATA TALUKDAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The subject matter of dispute in this writ petition is the objection of the petitioner/ the husband raised against his wife/ the Respondent No.4 (R4) qua her decision to transfer a Permanent Stage Carriage Permit (P.St.P.) along with the bus respectively bearing the Permit No. P.St.P. 09/2009 and bus number WB-55-6721 in favour of the Private Respondent No.5. 2. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Satwikk Bhattacharya, Learned Counsel, asserts that R4/his wife is the holder of both the permit and the bus. The permit is on the inter-state route Nawadih to Tata, that is between the States of West Bengal and Jharkhand. 3. The petitioner submits that however all steps connected to obtaining finance for the bus and to secure the permit from the State Transport Authorities (STAs) of West Bengal and Jharkhand were taken by him, since R4 had hitherto preferred, in family interest, to act as the name-lender only. 4. The petitioner further submits that with domestic differences arising between him and R4, issues arising out of such matrimonial discord were carried by R4 before the Court of the Learned Magistrate at Purulia under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short the PDV Act). The petitioner points out from the record of the writ petition that the charge of domestic violence levelled by R4 against him was not accepted by the Learned Judicial Magistrate (3rd Court) at Purulia and therefore the application under Section 12 of the PDV Act 2005, filed by R4 stood rejected by order dated 10th January, 2017. 5. Thereafter, the claim for interim maintenance was carried by R4 before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Purulia vide Misc. Case No.25 of 2017. By order dated 17th May, 2017 interim maintenance for R4, their daughter and son separately and respectively was granted by CJM, Purulia. 6. Mr. Bhattacharya submits that the petitioner as plaintiff has also filed Title Suit No. 124 of 2015 impleading R4 as the defendant No.1, STA, West Bengal as the defendant No.2 and the Registering Authority, Motor Vehicles Department at Purulia as the defendant No.3. 7. 6. Mr. Bhattacharya submits that the petitioner as plaintiff has also filed Title Suit No. 124 of 2015 impleading R4 as the defendant No.1, STA, West Bengal as the defendant No.2 and the Registering Authority, Motor Vehicles Department at Purulia as the defendant No.3. 7. Both the permit and the bus are the subject matter of the suit and the prayer made before the Learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) at Purulia reads as follows:- "Under the circumstances your petitioner most humbly prays that your Honour may graciously be pleased to pass an Order of Injunction restraining the Opposite Party No.1 from transferring Stage Carriage (Bus) No. WB-55- 6721 and Permanent Stage Carriage Permit being P.St.P. No.09/2009 (I/S) on the inter-state route Nawadih to Tata via Purulia to any third party and also restraining the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 from allowing the prayer of the Opposite Party No.1 for transferring the Stage Carriage (Bus) No. WB-55-6721 and Permanent Stage Carriage Permit being P.St.P. No.09/2009 (I/S) on the inter-state route Nawadih to Tata via Purulia to any third party, during the pendency of the suit; AND Your petitioner further prays for an ad-interim order in terms of prayer above." 8. The suit is accompanied by an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the prayer, inter alia, for an order in the nature of a temporary injunction. Notice of the suit has been served on the defendants and from the record of the orders passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Purulia as annexed to the writ petition it can be gathered that the defendant No.1/ R4 has entered appearance. 9. By Order No.30 dated 28th of January 2019 in Misc. Case No.325 of 2017 the suit, which was dismissed for default on 30th November, 2016, was restored upon condonation of delay and payment of costs. 10. From a correspondence dated 31st October, 2018 which has been received by the STA, West Bengal and the Registering Authority, Motor Vehicles Department, Purulia/ the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to the suit and the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (i.e. R1, R2 and R3) in this writ petition, the petitioner has informed the defendants Nos. 10. From a correspondence dated 31st October, 2018 which has been received by the STA, West Bengal and the Registering Authority, Motor Vehicles Department, Purulia/ the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to the suit and the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (i.e. R1, R2 and R3) in this writ petition, the petitioner has informed the defendants Nos. 2 and 3/R1, R2 and R3 of the pendency of the civil suit and his objection to the transfer of the permit and the bus by R4 in favour of R5. 11. The essential issue argued by Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the transfer of the permit and the bus cannot be mere ministerial steps taken by R1, R2 and R3 to assist R4 to act in favour of R5 since R4, although being the holder of the permit and therefore the owner of the bus on paper is merely a name-lender of the petitioner, who is the real owner and actual operator. Mr. Bhattacharya submits that in view of the steps taken by the petitioner in obtaining both the permit and the bus and thereafter to nominate R4 to hold the permit, although all responsibility connected to the operation of the permit and the bus are being discharged by the petitioner, is now subject to a decision by the competent Civil Court. 12. Since admittedly both the permit and the bus are properties which are the bone of contention between the estranged couple, that is the petitioner and R4/his wife, the dispute has been magnified before the Writ Court with the demand that STA, WB take steps to either recover or issue a duplicate of Part B of the permit which the petitioner is holding on to without authority of law. Accordingly, STA, West Bengal on the joint application of R4 and R5 in discharge of their respective obligations under Rule 159 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 (for short the 1989 Rules) called upon the petitioner to produce Part B of the permit for the purpose of effectuating the transfer. 13. WP No. 614 of 2018 which was filed by R4 was against the State of West Bengal and Ors. and included the present petitioner as a respondent. 13. WP No. 614 of 2018 which was filed by R4 was against the State of West Bengal and Ors. and included the present petitioner as a respondent. WP No.614 of 2018 was disposed of by the Hon'ble Single Bench on 17th January, 2019 by observing as follows:- "Since subject matter of controversy has already been taken to designated State Authority who has given hearing to both, Court is not inclined to go into merits of this writ petition. Decision of the designated authority, it is expected, will be made known to petitioner and intervener (husband) within three weeks from date. Letter dated 6th December, 2018 of Deputy Secretary, State Transport Authority, West Bengal be kept on record. Writ petition is disposed of." 14. Following the decision in WP 614 of 2018 (supra) the STA, West Bengal by its order dated 11th December, 2018 after hearing R4 and the petitioner decided as follows:- "After consideration of all facts and circumstances and statement of both parties, it is seen that permit in question issued in the name of Smt. Ankona Goswami with vehicle no. WB55-6721, which is lawfully owned by permit holder i.e. Smt Ankona Goswami. It is also observed that Shri Ashis Kr. Goswami cannot keep Part B of the permit which clearly indicates that concerned vehicle in question is actually not in possession of the permit holder. Shri Asish Kr. Goswami here is actually operating the vehicle. On behalf of his wife. Since it is a family dispute, STA has no authority to interfere into their family problem. Here Part B of the permit has neither been lost nor destroyer. So in terms of rules as stated above, duplicate permit cannot be issued to the permit holder, Shri Ankona Goswami. However, Shri Ashis Kr. Goswami is directed to return the permit Part B to STA, i.e. the permit issuing authority or deliver it to his wife, Smt Ankona Goswami within seven days from the date of communication of this order after observing all formalities. Otherwise Duplicate Part B of the permit will be issued to the permit holder. In the case of prayer for transfer of permit in favour of Smt Om Prakash Gupta, we amy wait till the final decision of W.P. No. 614 of 2018 in the matter of Smt Ankona Goswami vs. State of W.B. & ors. as the matter is at present subjudice." 15. Mr. In the case of prayer for transfer of permit in favour of Smt Om Prakash Gupta, we amy wait till the final decision of W.P. No. 614 of 2018 in the matter of Smt Ankona Goswami vs. State of W.B. & ors. as the matter is at present subjudice." 15. Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for R4, argues that the petitioner be now directed to comply with the decision of the STA, West Bengal dated the 11th of December, 2018 (supra) relying on Rules 159 and 160 of 1989 Rules, Mr. Chatterjee submits that R4 is admittedly the lawful permit holder and therefore the owner of the bus. Whatever may be the domestic circumstances narrated by the petitioner, under the Motor Vehicles Law the petitioner cannot illegally hold on to Part B and thereby prevent the desire of the lawful owner R4 to transfer such permit in favour of R5. 16. Mr. Chatterjee submits that the order dated 11th December, 2018 of STA, West Bengal demonstrates complete compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Court dated 17th January, 2019 in WP 614 of 2018. The final decision in WP 614 of 2018 has been already pronounced although such has been inadvertently overlooked by the STA, West Bengal in its order dated 17th January, 2019. 17. Therefore, Mr. Chatterjee submits that both judicial and administrative orders have converged to the point of transfer of the permit by R4 in favour of R5 complying with the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 read with the 1989 Rules. 18. Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court has no reason not to appreciate the stand taken by Mr. Chatterjee that the formalities of transfer as governed by the 1988 Act and the 1989 Rules have been appropriately dealt with by the STA, West Bengal through its Order dated 11th December, 2018. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to intervene in the ministerial direction of the STA, West Bengal directing the parties concerned to take steps to join Part B of the Permit with its Part A. 19. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the transfer of both the permit and the bus have now become properties subject to ultimate apportionment or any other orders to be passed by a competent Civil Court. 20. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the transfer of both the permit and the bus have now become properties subject to ultimate apportionment or any other orders to be passed by a competent Civil Court. 20. Admittedly the STA, West Bengal and the Registering Authority, Purulia are the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit. Admittedly again, the prayer for injunction exists in the record of the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Purulia connected to both the permit and the bus. 21. To the considered mind of this Court any direction overstepping the ministerial action directed by the STA, WB (supra) to join Part A with Part B (of the Permit) would amount to usurpation of the paramount civil rights of the parties being presently under adjudication. 22. In the above view of the matter, while the decision of the STA, West Bengal dated 11th December, 2018 directing the petitioner to produce Part B of the permit or, in the alternative, to issue a duplicate permit following Rule 160 of the 1989 Rules is not interfered with, the actual transfer of both the permit and the bus cannot be acted upon by any of the parties without obtaining the leave of the Learned Civil Court, in this case the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Purulia. 23. W.P. No. 133 of 2019 stands accordingly disposed of. Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.