Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 546 (CAL)

Suman Kundu v. State

2020-07-01

SUBRATA TALUKDAR

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. The short question arising for consideration in both the above noted analogous writ petitions is the action of the State Respondents to shift the terminus of the permanent stage carriage Route No. 45 (for short the said Route) from Airport Gate No. 2 to Haldiram Bus Terminus. 2. In WP No. 26035 (W) of 2018 (for short WP I), Mr. Samanta, Learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in both the petitions, raises the question as to whether the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Kolkata Region, acted within jurisdiction by resolving at its Board Meeting held on 15th of November, 2018 to change the alignment as well as one of the termini points of the said route resulting in effect in the creation of a new route altogether. 3. Mr. Samanta argues that any change and/or variation in alignment is subject to the conditions specified in Section 80 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended and referred to henceforth as the MV Act). Learned Counsel additionally points out that the meeting of the RTA Board on 15th November, 2018 shows the presence of a non-member of the RTA Board, thus rendering the resolution at the meeting voidable. 4. It is also submitted that the legal infirmity attached to the resolution dated 15th November, 2018 (supra), vitiates the subsequent RTA Board resolution dated 5th December, 2018 inasmuch as the subsequent resolution expressly ratifies the previous resolution without removing the defects of the former. The subsequent resolution dated 5th December, 2018 refers to the change of alignment and a terminus of the said route by the Transport Department, Government of West Bengal by issuance of a fresh Notification. 5. Mr. Samanta also appears in support of WP 4061 (W) of 2019 (WP II). The challenge in WP II is to the Notification of the Transport Department, Government of West Bengal dated 6th of February, 2019. By the impugned Notification, in exercise of powers under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, the alignment and, consequently one of the termini points of the said route has been changed from Airport Gate No.2 to Kaikhali Bus Stand (Haldiram). The Notification dated 6th February, 2019 was the culminating point of the process of change of alignment and one of the termini points of the said Route No.45 triggered by the first resolution of the RTA Board dated 15th November, 2018. 6. The Notification dated 6th February, 2019 was the culminating point of the process of change of alignment and one of the termini points of the said Route No.45 triggered by the first resolution of the RTA Board dated 15th November, 2018. 6. It is argued that the said Route was formulated by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 71 (3)(a) of the MV Act and could be not be reformulated partially. It is contended that since the said Route is notified under Section 71 of the MV Act for long, the introduction of a new and partial Route alignment and terminus by the impugned Notification dated 6th February, 2019 is de hors the legally accepted finality attached to notified routes. The new route, in short, as sought to be ushered in by the Notification dated 6th February, 2019, is more in the nature of a technical exercise to make the Kaikhali (Haldiram) Bus Stand operational and, less an exercise catering to public convenience. Accordingly, the petitioners seek a roll back of both the resolutions of the RTA Board, Kolkata as challenged in WP I and the Notification of the Transport Department, Government of West Bengal, as challenged in WP II. 7. Appearing for the State Respondents in both WP I and WP II, Mr. Sen, Learned Additional Government Pleader (AGP), submits that the exercise by the State Respondents culminated in the said route being newly and lawfully formulated under the Notification dated 6th February, 2019. Referring to Section 68 (3) (ca) of the MV Act, Learned AGP submits that the Notification dated 6th February, 2019 subsumes all administrative circulars previously issued including those circulars under Rule 182 of the WB Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, the 1989 Rules), which have the effect of altering only the halting points of routes. The formulation of the new alignment and terminus point is a step taken under Section 68 (3) (ca) (supra) by the Transport Department in furtherance of public interest and convenience. The exercise of powers under Section 68 (3) (ca) also subsumes any argument on variation of the route read with principles analogous thereto under Section 80 (3) of the MV Act. 8. The exercise of powers under Section 68 (3) (ca) also subsumes any argument on variation of the route read with principles analogous thereto under Section 80 (3) of the MV Act. 8. The State contends that from the chain of events culminating in the formulation of the new alignment and terminus point, it cannot be alleged that the provisions qua Section 71 of the MV Act are violated. The new Bus Terminus at Kaikhali (Haldiram) has been particularly designed to handle the expected traffic replete with commensurate public amenities with the purpose of decongesting Airport Gate No.2. The State further alleges that the petitioners represent only a handful of operators who are refusing to treat the new Bus Terminus at Kaikhali (Haldiram) as their terminus point. To the contrary, other operators including the private respondent No.10, who is represented by Mr. B.K. Samanta, Learned Counsel, have accepted the new alignment and terminus point as notified on 6th February, 2019. 9. Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court finds as follows:- (A)That the attention of this Court is drawn to the solemn Order dated 11th December, 2018 passed in WP 22090 (W) of 2018 as passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench which, at its operative part, reads as follows:- “In absence of notification petitioners cannot be compelled to adhere to changed alignment as thought fit by the Board. Interim order obtained and in operation in respect of petitioners is confirmed till position is altered by notification duly published. Respondent no. 8 will not cause any hindrance to petitioners’ operation under their existing route. Writ petition is disposed of. CAN 8985 of 2018 is also disposed of. CAN 8984 of 2018 is application for addition of other operators on route no. 45. They have accepted position taken by the authority in providing them bus terminus at Haldiram Kaikhali. This is in spite of no notification to that effect. As such they are not deemed either necessary of proper parties to be added to this writ petition. CAN 8984 of 2018 is dismissed.” (B) Having regard to the operative part of the solemn order dated 11th December, 2018 (supra), this Court finds that the said order has attained finality in the absence of any evidence of challenge. As such they are not deemed either necessary of proper parties to be added to this writ petition. CAN 8984 of 2018 is dismissed.” (B) Having regard to the operative part of the solemn order dated 11th December, 2018 (supra), this Court finds that the said order has attained finality in the absence of any evidence of challenge. It is relevant to mention that the petitioners in WP I and WP II are also the petitioners in WP 22090 (W) of 2018 as decided by the Order dated 11th December, 2018. (C) Therefore to the mind of this Court, the legal process envisaged by the solemn Order dated 11th December, 2018 has been brought to its logical culminating point by the Notification dated 6th February, 2019. The said Notification dated 6th February, 2019 stands in conformity with the plenary powers of the Transport Department to formulate a fresh alignment and terminus point consistent with the available infrastructure to suit public convenience. In the backdrop of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in WP I and WP II. This Court cannot also miss to notice that operators, such as the Respondent No. 10, have embraced the Notification dated 6th February, 2019, thereby adding to the perception based on ground realities that the petitioners do not represent the public convenience at large. There will be, However, no order as to costs. WP No. 26035 (W) of 2018 and WP No. 4061 (W) of 2019 stand accordingly dismissed. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance of necessary formalities.