Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Saroj Karmakar vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 21 July, 2014
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
1
21.07.2014
20
s.das
W. P. 20741(W)of 2014
Sri Saroj Karmakar
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. S. Mukherjee ...... for the petitioner
Mr. Sabyasachi Mondal .... for the State
The impugned decision dated 21.10.2013 passed by the
Regional Transport Authority, Burdwan, rejecting the
application for grant of contract carriage permit of the
petitioner has been challenged. By the impugned decision the
application was turned down with the following observations :
"The applicant was present on call at the time of hearing.
Perused the case records alongwith enquiry report
submitted by Sri M. Majumdar, A.R.T.C. Kalna. The case
is rejected for violation of notification No. 268-WT/3M-
01/2010 Pt. 1 dated 29.1.2010 as the applied route is
covering more than 30% existing Bus route."
Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner, submits that the order is a non-speaking one and
merely refers to the concerned notification. There is no
discussion of the factual matrix of the case or the contents of
the enquiry report which has been relied therein. He further
2
submits that extract of the enquiry report also not furnished to
his client.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the prayer.
Having considered the rival submissions of the parties, I
find the impugned decision is bereft of material particulars.
Only a bald conclusion has been recorded that the application is
violative of Notification No. 268-WT/3M-01/2010 Pt. 1 dated
29.1.2010 as applied route covers more than 30% of existing
bus route. Reliance has been placed on an enquiry report
contents whereof have not been discussed in the impugned
decision. Admittedly, extract of the enquiry report used against
the petitioner has also not been furnished to him. Particulars of
the overlapped bus routes have not been noted. Mere recording
of conclusion while dealing with applications for grant of
permits under Section 80 of the Motor Vehicle Act is not
sufficient. Under the liberalized statutory scheme grant of
permit is the rule and rejection is an exception. It is incumbent
on the Board to examine the facts applicable to each case and
after applying its mind thereto record reasons for arriving at an
adverse finding against the applicant. There is a complete
abrogation of such statutory duty in the instant case.
Accordingly, the impugned decision is set aside. The
3
respondent no. 2/ Regional Transport Authority, Burdwan is
directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law after service of copy of the extract of the enquiry report and giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and arrive at a decision thereon within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of the order. Decision, so taken, shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter. I, however, make it clear that I have expressed opinion with regard to the infractions in the decision making process and have not been expressed any opinion on the merits of the application which shall be considered independently and in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)