Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Samar Roy vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 9 July, 2014
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
09.07.2014.
Item No. 59 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
W.P. 18594(W) of 2014
Samar Roy
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Gazi Faruque Hossain,
Ms. Ranjana Har Chowdhury,
... for the petitioner
Mr. Pantu Deb Roy,
Mr. Jaladhi Das,
... for the State
\\\
The impugned decision taken by the respondent no. 2, the Regional
Transport Authority, Cooch Behar, on 30th December, 2013, communicated vide memo no. MV/402 dated 5th June, 2014, with regard to the prayer of the petitioner for grant of contract carriage permit for auto rickshaw has been challenged.
The impugned memo dated 5th June, 2014 indicates that the application was dealt with in the light of the following observations:
"1) No new Auto‐rickshaw should be allowed on NH (excepting crossing such NH).
2) No new Auto‐rickshaw on SHW should run beyond 3 kms.
3) No new Auto‐rickshaw permit will be allowed beyond the strength of 15 kms.
4) Applicants should posses Auto Driving License.
Under these circumstances, after a thorough discussion, the Board decided to keep the issue in abeyance temporarily and take up the matter with the higher authority for relaxation of eligibility condition in respect of item no. (4).
Accordingly, a proposal regarding relaxation of Auto Driving License has already been sent to the Department. After getting a clear cut instruction from the Department, the total matter will be settled and action will be taken accordingly."
It appears from the aforesaid observations that a final decision has not been taken as yet and the matter has been kept in abeyance awaiting instructions from the Government relating to relaxation of condition as to the possession of auto driving licence.
Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the condition nos. 1, 2 and 3, indicated in the impugned memo, are factually inapplicable in his case. He further submits that the factual matrix of the case has not been discussed and no reasons have been given to arrive at the aforesaid conclusions.
Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents submits that final decision has not been taken as yet in the matter.
I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and the materials on record. I find that the respondent no. 2 in its impugned decision dated 30th December, 2013, as communicated vide impugned memo dated 5th June, 2014, has come to various adverse conclusions on the application of the petitioner. Such conclusions are independent of the clarification awaited from the Government and have been arrived at without any analysis of relevant facts applicable to the case of the petitioner. Mere conclusions have been quoted in the impugned memo without application of mind to the factual matrix of the case. No reasons have also been indicated to arrive at such conclusions in the facts of the case.
Accordingly, I set aside the impugned decision dated 30th December, 2013 taken by the respondent no. 2, as communicated vide impugned memo dated 5th June, 2014.
The respondent no. 2, the Regional Transport Authority, Cooch Behar is directed to reconsider the application after analyzing relevant facts and arrived at a decision thereon with a period of twelve weeks. Decision, so taken, shall be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. Needless to mention, if the respondent no. 2 chooses to reject the application, it shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and assigned reasons in support thereof.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
ab (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)