Calcutta High Court
Sudipta Chowdhury & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 29 November, 2010
Author: Indira Banerjee
Bench: Indira Banerjee
ORDER SHEET
W.P. No.1419 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
Sudipta Chowdhury & Anr.
-Versus-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. R. Bhattacharjee, Advocate,
... for the petitioners.
Mr. G. Mukherjee, Advocate,
... for the state respondents.
Before The Hon'ble Justice INDIRA BANERJEE 29.11.2010 In this writ application the petitioners, who carry on business as transport operators under the name and style of M/s. Monorama Travels have challenged a decision taken by the State Transport Authority at its meeting held on August 27, 2010, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for inclusion of second vehicle in the permit granted to M/s. Manorama Travels to operate on the route from Kolkata to Hilli via Ultadanga, V.I.P., Barasat Krishnangar, Berhampur and Malda and back.
M/s. Manorama Travels was granted a permanent stage carriage permit being P.St.P. No.118/06(I/R) on or about 6th 2 December, 2006. The permit is valid till 6th December, 2011. The route covered by the permit is about 475 K.Ms. The vehicle has to travel about 950 K.Ms to make a round trip from Kolkata to Hilli and back.
Having regard to the long distance the petitioners applied for inclusion of another vehicle in the permit. The vehicle is, according to the petitioner, Bharat Stage-III compliant.
By the impugned decision the prayer for inclusion of the said vehicle has been rejected on the ground that the petitioners have applied for inclusion of second vehicle after a long period and that inclusion of second vehicle could, for all practical purposes, tantamount to issue of new permit on a route terminating in the Central Business District in the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Area which is presently not permissible by reason of Government notifications restricting stage carriages.
Rule 99A of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 provides as follows :
"99A. In respect of stage carriage permit, if the permit holder intends to ply two vehicles for two single trips under one stage permit, holder shall pay double the amount of permit fee : 3
Provided that in no case two round trips or four single trips for the two vehicles shall be allowed."
In Dibakar Sahu Vs. State Transport Authority, West Bengal & Anr. reported in AIR 1991 Calcutta 261 cited by Mr. Bhattacharjee, a learned Single Bench of this Court held that under Section 88(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the State Transport Authority had to give effect to Reciprocal Agreements. If under the Reciprocal Agreement permit holder was entitled to make two trips on each day and required another vehicle to be covered by the same permit, to enable him to make two trips as sanctioned by the reciprocal agreement, there could not be any good reason to deny the petitioner of the benefit to which he was entitled under the Reciprocal Agreement. This Court, in effect, held that allowing of an additional vehicle to make the same number of trips would not amount to grant of an additional permit.
In terms of the notification, there is ceiling on the number of vehicles that can be granted permits to operate. The ceiling would not apply when more than one vehicle operates to make a single trip. The entire idea or object of statutory notification limiting the number of stage carriage and/or contract carriage permits, is to limit the total number of vehicles entering and operating in the area. If the 4 incorporation of an additional vehicle does not make any difference to the number of vehicles entering and operating in the area, there can be no objection to inclusion of the vehicle for the sake of operational convenience. The petitioner would necessarily have to operate the vehicle as per time table and as per route permit. The petitioner would be entitled to one round trip whether by a single vehicle or by two vehicles. There would be no difference to the number of trips.
The impugned decision is, thus, set aside.
State Transport Authority shall take a fresh decision in accordance with law and in the line of observations made above, within one month from the date of communication of this order.
Affidavits not having been called for, the allegations in the writ petition shall be deemed not to have been admitted.
Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(INDIRA BANERJEE, J.) C. Sinha & K.Banerjee Assistant Registrars (C.R.)