Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pankaj Ghosh vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 1 July, 2014
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
Form No. J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi
W.P. 12924(W) of 2014
Pankaj Ghosh
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy,
Mr. Pinjal Bhattacharyya.
For the Respondent No. 6 : Mr. D.K. Dhar,
Mr. Anirban Dutta For the State : Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee, Ms. Tanusree Chanda.
Heard on : 1.07.2014 Judgment on : 1st July, 2014.
Joymalya Bagchi,J.
At the outset Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that he seeks leave to add Regional Transport Authority, Darjeeling as party respondent in the proceeding.
Such leave is granted. Let amendment be made in course of the day. Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee, learned senior advocate, appearing on behalf of the State respondents takes note on behalf of the added respondent.
The writ petitioner is running a pre‐paid taxi booth at Civil Air Terminal, Bagdogra, Darjeeling. In order to carry on such business, the petitioner had been licensed by the respondent no. 5, the Airport Authority of India, to operate such taxi booth within its premise. The petitioner also obtained a licence under sub‐rule (2) of Rule 196 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'said Rules') to act as an agent on behalf of the owners to receive the fairs on its behalf. The petitioner has been continuing such business for more than fifteen years.
Being aggrieved by a decision taken by the Joint Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Transport Department on 22nd January, 2013, inter alia, to open new pre‐paid taxi booths at Bagdogra Airport and New Jalpaiguri Railway Station, which shall be managed and controlled by the Commissioner of Police, Siliguri, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. 9264(W) of 2013.
In course of hearing, in the aforesaid writ petition, it was intimated by the Airports Authority of India, respondent no. 5 herein, that a new tender process is being undertaken for operation of the pre‐paid taxi booth at the Airport. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 15th May, 2013 with the following directions:
"In these circumstances, I am opinion that the Airports Authority of India should be permitted to proceed with their new selection process. The petitioner shall be entitled to participate in such process. But the selected person, unless he obtains a licence under the provisions of clause 196(2) of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 would not be eligible to operate such prepaid taxi booth. Till such final selection is made, as a stopgap measure the petitioner shall be permitted to operate the booth from the present place on payment of fees and other charges stipulated as per the prevailing Rule, on a proportionate basis. I am directing such measure to avoid any inconvenience to the travelling public during the interim period."
In terms of such direction, the petitioner continued to operate the booth. He also participated in the tender process floated by the respondent no. 5, the Airports Authority of India. In the said tender process, the petitioner was successful and has been awarded a licence to operate the pre‐paid taxi booth at Bagdogra Airport vide letter dated 31st October, 2013 being Annexure - 'P23' to the writ petition. In the meantime, the petitioner has sought renewal of agent's licence issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Darjeeling under sub‐rule (2) of Rule 196 of the said Rules prior to its expiry. The petitioner complains that such application has not been considered till date. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed praying for a direction upon the Regional Transport Authority, Darjeeling, the added respondent, for renewal of his licence.
Mr. Saha Roy, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in view of the fact that the licence to operate the taxi both at Bagdogra Airport has been granted to the petitioner by the respondent no. 5. It was incumbent upon the Regional Transport Authority to renew the requisite agent's licence under sub‐rule (2) of Rule 196 of the said Rules for a smooth operation of pre‐paid taxi facilities at the Airport terminal.
Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 5, the Airports Authority of India, submits that the petitioner, in fact, has been granted licence to operate the pre‐paid booth from the said Airport subject to renewal of licence under sub‐rule (2) of Rule 196 of the said Rules.
Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee, learned senior advocate along with Ms. Tanusree Chanda, learned advocate appears on behalf of the State and submits that the earlier order dated 22nd January, 2013 issued by the Joint Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Transport Department had not been set aside by this Court in the earlier proceeding.
Having considered the rival submissions of the parties, I find that earlier order dated 22nd January, 2013 was considered by this Court in its order dated 15th May, 2013 in W.P. 9264(W) of 2013. After consideration of the said order, this Court had directed that the selection process to continue and permitted the petitioner to participate therein. The petitioner was also permitted to operate the taxi booth as a stop gap arrangement. Pursuant to such direction it appears that the petitioner has been granted licence to operate the pre‐paid taxi booth at the Bagdogra Airport terminal. Such selection, however, is subject to the grant of agent's licence under sub‐rule (2) of Rule 196 of the said Rules by the Regional Transport Authority. It is undisputed that the petitioner has been enjoying the agent's licence since 1999. There has been no complaint against the petitioner. The prayer for renewal of such licence has not been considered by the Regional Transport Authority till date. It is incumbent upon the Regional Transport Authority to immediately consider renewal of licence of the petitioner in accordance with law, failing which it would not be possible for the petitioner to effectively utilize the licence granted to him by the respondent no. 5 for operating the pre‐paid tax booth. Order dated 22nd January, 2013 referred to by Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate, does not put any prohibition in the operation of any pre‐paid taxi booth by an individual. It merely refers to the desire of the Government to set up a pre‐paid taxi booth manned by the Law Enforcement Agency. I do not find that such order can stand in the way of the Regional Transport Authority to consider the prayer for renewal of agentʹs licence of the petitioner under sub‐rule (2) of Rule 196 of the said Rules to enable him to operate the pre‐paid taxi booth in respect of which licence has been settled in his favour by the respondent no. 5.
Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition directing the Regional Transport Authority, Darjeeling to consider the prayer for renewal of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid observations and take a decision thereon within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Such decision shall be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.
Till any decision is taken by the Regional Transport Authority, Darjeeling with regard to the renewal of the agent's licence of the petitioner, the status quo with regard to the right of the petitioner to operate the pre‐paid taxi booth shall continue.
Since no affidavit‐in‐opposition is called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are not deemed to have been admitted by the respondents.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)