Calcutta High Court
Pallav Goswami vs Smt. Ava Rani Sinha on 3 August, 1995
Equivalent citations: (1995)2CALLT452(HC), 100CWN20, 1996 A I H C 3118, (1996) 1 CIVLJ 681, (1995) 2 CALLT 452, (1995) CAL WN 20
JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Dutta, J.
1. This is an application by the Petitioner-Appellant praying for stay of the operation of the order dated 13th December, 1994 passed by a learned Single Judge of our Court in Matter No. 2089 of 1994 before him, and for stay of all further Proceedings of the said Contempt Application till the disposal of this Appeal in terms thereof for the reasons stated therein.
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the relevant Contempt Proceedings and the instant Appeal may shortly be set out as follows : On an application, filed by the Respondent herein, Smt. Ava Rani Sinha (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner), the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, (hereinafter referred to as S.T.A.) had granted temporary permit in her favour for 17 weeks for plying Bus in the route Howrah Railway Station to Itaberia on the following Resolution taken by it on 28th August, 1992 :-
"that there is no direct transport communication from Itaberia to Calcutta. The poor villagers of the locality have to reach Calcutta by changing Bus twice. It will therefore be a very great benefit to the local people if a bus plys from Itaberia to Calcutta direct. .,........"
The said permit was effective from 2.11.92 to 28.2.93. A second temporary permit for the said route was also granted to her for the period from 1.3.93 to 27.6.93. The Petitioner had made another application for temporary permit dated 4.6.93 before the expiry of the aforesaid second temporary permit (on 27-6-93). Her said application having not been considered by the S.T.A., she had filed a Writ Petition before the Learned Single Judge which was disposed of by the latter by order dated 17th September, 1993 directing the S.T.A. to consider her application for temporary permit dated 4-6-93 for the aforesaid route "and dispose of the same in accordance with law by passing a speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and taking into consideration their Resolution dated 28-8-82, which is Annexure "A" to the Writ Application, within six weeks from the date of communication of the order." In compliance with the said order, the S.T.A. had considered the Petitioner's application for temporary permit, and had rejected the same by Resolution dated 24.11.93, on the ground that ' as the main alignment of the route coincided with the Calcutta-Digha route which was a notified route and no ground for temporary permit was felt the prayer for permit was rejected." The same was communicated to the Petitioner by letter dated 20-12-93.
3. A second Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioner Ava Rani Sinha against the aforesaid Resolution of the S.T.A. dated 24-11-93, which was again disposed of by the same learned Judge by the Judgment and Order dated 16th March, 1994 after contested hearing. The learned Judge by the said Judgment and Order had quashed the aforesaid impugned Resolution of the S.T.A. dated 24.11.93, which was Annexure "F" to the Writ Application, for the reasons discussed at length therein. The learned Judge had thereunder directed the S.T.A. to grant temporary permit to the Petitioner for a period of 17 weeks for the route Itaberia to Howrah within 7 days from the date of communication of the order. The S.T.A. was further directed" to consider the application of the Petitioner for permanent permit on the said route, and to dispose of the same in accordance with law by passing a speaking order within 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner."
4. Mr. D. K. Seth, the learned Advocate appearing for the S.T.A., had prayed for stay of the operation of the aforesaid Judgment and Order immediately after the passing of the Order, which was refused. No appeal appears to have been preferred by the S.T.A. against the aforesaid Judgment and Order dated 16-3-94 by which the aforesaid impugned Resolution dated 24-11-93 had been quashed. Nor, any step taken for review of the same. The aforesaid Judgment and Order, accordingly, stood final, absolute and unalterable as such.
5. The S.T.A. appears to have granted temporary permit to the Petitioner in compliance with the first part of the direction under the aforesaid Judgment and Order ; but had rejected her application for permanent permit by Resolution dated 23/6/94 on the ground "that the route Itaberia to Howrah Railway Station is part of a notified route, Calcutta to Digha, which is notified under Section 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act." The Petitioner's application for permanent permit was accordingly rejected by the S.T.A. on the ground that the aforesaid route is a part of notified route Calcutta to Digha, the very ground taken in the aforesaid earlier Resolution dated 24.11.93, quashed by the aforesaid Judgment and Order dated 16th March, 1994, which stands final, absolute and unalterable, in the circumstances indicated above. We wonder how the S.T.A. could conceivably have rejected the Writ Petitioner's application for permanent permit on the aforesaid ground, which had already been quashed by this Court by the aforesaid Judgment and Order dated 16th March, 1994.
6. The Appellant-S.T.A. has taken a plea in paragraphs 6, 7 & 8 of the Stay Petition that since the full text of the Court's Judgment and Order dated 16-3-94 was not communicated to him he was not aware of the contents of the grounds on which the said ground for rejection was quashed. In the absence of the full text of the aforesaid Judgment and Order he was thus not in a position to know the contents thereof, and as such the said order under the aforesaid Resolution dated 23/6/94 was passed; clearly suggesting that the said Order/Resolution dated 23/6/94 rejecting the Writ Petitioner's application for permanent permit would not have been passed if he was aware of the full text of the Judgment and Order dated 16-4-93. The same plea appears to have been taken on behalf of the S. T. A. be- fore the court below while the impugned order dated 13th December, 1994 was passed by the Court. It was then submitted before the Court by the learned Advocate appearing for the Contemner- S.T.A. that if there was any violation of the Court's order in rejecting the Writ-Petitioner's application for permanent permit on the self same ground, which was set aside by this Court, that has been done unwittingly without knowing the full text of the aforesaid relevant order of this Court, for which the Contemners had tendered unqualified apology. The said submission as well would seem to suggest that the S.T.A. would not have rejected the Petitioner's application for permanent permit on the ground which was already set aside by this Court by the aforesaid Judgment and Order dated 16/3/94, had he been aware of the full text of the said Judgment and Order. But the aforesaid plea of the Contemner-Appellant that he was not aware of the full text of the aforesaid Judgment & Order does not seem to be acceptable as it would oddly appear from Annexure "C" to his Stay Application (at pages 15 & 16) that the operative portion of the aforesaid Judgment and Order dated 16/3/94 was sent to him by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner clearly indicating therein that the impugned Resolution of the S.T.A., which was Annexure "F" to her Writ-Application, was quashed thereunder. The said plea had neither been accepted by the learned Judge while passing the impugned order dated 13th December, 1994 for the reasons clearly indicated therein.
7. In terms of the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an application for permit could be rejected only under the five situations indicated in Sections 71(2), 71(3)(d), proviso to Section 72(1), first proviso to Section 80(2) and Section 104 of the Act. It is not disputed that the situations contemplated in the first proviso to Section 80(2) or under Section 74(3a) of the Act are not applicable in the present case as no Notification has been issued by the State Government in the matter as yet.
8. The application of the Petitioner, Ava Rani Sinha for temporary permit was once rejected by the S.T.A. by Resolution dated 24,11.93 on the ground that the relevant route coincided with the Calcutta-Digha route, which was a notified route, covered by the situation under Section 104 of the Act. The Petitioner's application for. permanent permit had also been rejected by the S.T.A. by the Resolution dated 23/6/94 for the second time on the same very ground that the concerned route is a part of the notified route, Calcutta to Digha, giving the clearest and conclusive indication that there was no other ground for refusing to grant permit to the Petitioner for the route in question. The lone ground for which her applications for temporary permit and permanent permit had been rejected by the S.T.A. twice by the aforesaid Resolutions dated 24/11/93 and 23/6/94 respectively had already been quashed by the aforesaid Judgment and Order dated 16th March, 1994, which stands final, unalterable and absolute, in the circumstances indicated above. Since no other ground for refusal to grant (permanent) permit to the Petitioner could be made out by the S.T.A,., it seems to us that he would be left with no other alternative but to grant permanent permit to the Petitioner for the route in question. But the question as to whether he should be held guilty of Contempt of Court for rejecting the Petitioner's application for permanent permit for the route in question, in compliance with the aforesaid Judgment and Order dated 16th March, 1994, the same being, what it is, is a matter which is yet to be considered and decided by the court below, and should not be pre-judged by us at this stage.
9. We are not unmindful of the Division Bench decisions of this Court in Dulal Ch. Bhar and Ors. v. Sukumar Banerjee, , Saibal Kr. Gupta and Ors. v. B. K. Sen, , and Sunil Kr. Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal and Ors., 1995(1) CHN 166, as also the decisions of the Supreme Court in Md. Idris & Any. v. Rustam Jahangir Bapuji and Ors., and Noorali Babu Thanewala v. Sh. K. M. M. Setty and Ors., wherein it has been held that in a Contempt Application the Court is competent to issue necessary further and consequential directions for enforcing its order. But such necessary further consequential direction for enforcing the order of the Court is in addition to inflicting punishment to the Contemner, if found guilty of contempt of Court. The Appellant-S.T.A. has not yet been found guilty of contempt of Court. The impugned order dated 13th December, 1994 directing the S.T.A. to grant permanent permit to the Writ-Petitioner for the route in question (for enforcing the Judgment and Order dated 16.3.94) before finally passing any order on the Contempt Application thus seems to us to be permature. That part of the order is liable to be stayed and set aside as such. That being so, the impugned order of the court below directing the S.T.A. to grant permanent permit to the Writ Petitioner for the route in question be hereby set aside. The learned Judge shall, however, be at liberty to pass such appropriate order/orders according to lave, as he may deem fit and proper, upon consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, while finally disposing of the Contempt Application, without being influence by the observations hereinabove made by us.
The Application as also the Appeal, which is treated as on Day's List, be accordingly disposed of.
In the facts and circumstances of the matter, we make no order as to cost.
M.G. Mukherji, J.
10. I agree.