Calcutta High Court
Dibakar Sahu vs State Transport Authority, West Bengal ... on 19 June, 1990
Equivalent citations: AIR1991CAL146, 94CWN987, AIR 1991 CALCUTTA 261, AIR 1991 CALCUTTA 146, (1990) 2 CAL LJ 43
ORDER
1. A supplementary Reciprocal Transport Agreement was entered into by and between the State of West Bengal and the State of Orissa in accordance with the provisions of Section 63(3B) of the preceding Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in view of the contiguity of the two States and for the purpose of development of inter-State traffic and the same, being Notification No. 10709-WT dated 17th September, 1986, was published in the Calcutta Gazette, Extraordinary, dated 25th October, 1986. It has not been, as it cannot be, disputed that the said Reciprocal Agreement, though made under the provisions of the preceding Act of 1939, is still validly operative and shall be deemed to have been made under the corresponding provision of Section 88 of the present Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, in view of Section 217 thereof. Both under Section 88(6) of the present Act of 1988, as was under Section 63(3B) of the preceding Act of 1939, "the State Transport Authority of the State and the Regional Transport Authority concerned shall give effect to it", any contrary provisions in the Act notwithstanding.
2. Under the said Agreement, the Route Jajpur to Karagpur has been extended up to Calcutta and though only one permit has been provided for, the number of trips provided are nevertheless two;
3. The petitioner had one permit for the original Route Jajpur-Kharagpur before extension and has still now only one permit for the Route after extention to Calcutta. He cannot, or for the matter of that, no one can, have more than one permit, that being the number fixed for the Route under the Agreement. But, as already noted, the Agreement nevertheless authorises one permit-holder to have two trips. Two trips would obviously mean two trips on the same day, as otherwise the second trip on the next or some other day would become a single trip on that day.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted, and that has not been disputed by the respondents and their learned Counsel, that in view of the long distance between Jajpur to Calcutta, a second trip on the same day, is a sheer impossibility. The learned Counsel has accordingly urged that since the petitioner, under the terms of the Reciprocal Agreement, is entitled to two trips and since two trips on the same day by the same Vehicle is absolutely impossible, the petitioner must be allowed to use another vehicle which may make the other trip from the other end of the Route.
5. Mr. Das, the learned Counsel, for the Respondents, has frankly conceded that under under the Reciprocal Agreement, the petitioner, though entitled to one permit, is nevertheless entitled to make two trips a day and that if two trips a day are not at all possible by one vehicle, the petitioner's prayer for allowing him to use another vehicle deserves serious consideration to enable him, and also the public at large, to have the benefit of two trips for which the Reciprocal Agreement specifically provide. But Mr. Dass has expressed his doubts as to whether, the number of permit sanctioned being one only, two vehicles can be allowed to be covered by one permit.
6. Mr. De, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that though under the law, a motor vehicle must have a permit, there is nothing in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 or any other law to indicate that one permit can relate to one vehicle only and cannot cover two or more vehicles. Mr. De has produced before me copies of a number of Permits through a Supplementary Affidavit, covering more than one vehicle at the same time. Mr. Das has considred those documents and even after taking time to obtain instructions, has not been able to dispute the same or to come out with a counter.
7. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition, the petitioner has asserted that the State Transport Authority of Orissa is allowing the permit-holder selected by them for the Route under the Reciprocal Agreement to give "two single trips from two ends" and this averment has not also been disputed by the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition, nor by their learned Counsel during the argument.
8. The petitioner duly applied to the State Transport Authority of West Bengal for allowing him to place another vehicle under the same Permit and to allow him to have two trips, each from one end, under the same Permit. The State Transport Authority, however, have declined the prayer mainly on the ground that to allow the petitioner to do so would amount to granting of a new Permit for one more single trip. As I have already noted, under the provisions of Section 88(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the State Transport Authority, or, for the matter of that, all other authorities under the Act, have been mandated to "give effect to" the Reciprocal Agreement. If under the Reciprocal Agreement, the petitioner is entitled to have two trips on each day, and requires another vehicle to be covered by the same permit to enable him to make such trips as sanctioned by the Agreement, there cannot be any good reason to deny the petitioner that benefit to which he is entitled under the Reciprocal Agreement. Once the Reciprocal Agreement is entered into, the authorities concerned, under Section 88 of the Act, "shall give effect to it" and nothing in the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act would stand in the way. Once it is conceded, as has been conceded by Mr. Das, that more than one vehicle can legally be covered by one permit, as would appear from the copies of the Permits annexed to the Supplementary Affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is difficult to find any reason as to why the petitioner shall not be permitted to use two vehicles under one Permit, particularly when it is not disputed that the long distance of the Route in question cannot be covered by two trips daily by one single vehicle. To take a homely example from the World of Sports, if a Batsman is entitled to run, but cannot run because of some physical incapacity or otherwise, he can have the run made by another person as a runner.
9. Mr. Das has contended that in view of the long distance of the Jajpur-Calcutta Route, the provisions of the Reciprocal Agreement providing for one permit only, but two trips a day, have made the situation somewhat anomalous in view of the impossibility for a single vehicle to make two trips covering such long distance of the Route. Whether the concerned authorities should come out with a suitable revision of the Reciprocal Transport Agreement, which is expressly made subject to revision at an interval of every six months, is a different matter. But even until such revision is made, I find no reason why the petitioner shall not be allowed to have two trips daily and for that purpose to have one more vehicle covered by the same Permit so that each one of the vehicles may make a single trip from one end of the Route to the other.
10. The writ petition accordingly succeeds and the impugned resolution of the State Transport Authority, West Bengal dated 21-3-89, passed under Item No. 5, being annexure 'E' to the petition is quashed and the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to give two single trips in the Route Jajpur to Calcutta and to run one additional vehicle for the purpose on the strength of the existing Permit granted to the Petitioner. No costs.
11. Petition allowed.