Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rahul Chanda vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 3 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
(APPELLATE SIDE)
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay
WPA 28142 of 2023
Rahul Chanda
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy,
: Mr. Neil Basu,
: Mr. Sankha Biswas.
For the State : Mr. Pantu Deb Roy, Ld. A.G.P.
For the respondents : Mr. Barun Kr. Samanta.
Judgment on : 03/09/2025 (1) A resolution of the RTA Board meeting dated October 10, 2023, is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner has challenged the same being aggrieved with the decision of the Board therein as enumerated, that the 24th position in the fleet strength of 40, on route No.71 is to be vacated, by cancelling the permit of the writ petitioner bearing No. 029/71/NEW/2005, with respect to the petitioner's vehicle No Page 2 of 23 WB-04E/3525. The writ petitioner claims himself to be the 24th permit holder, in the fleet strength of 40, on route No.71. (2) The instant case has a chequered history and the factual background as stated in the writ petition may be narrated in a nutshell.
(3) A permanent stage carriage permit bearing No. 029/71/NEW/2005, earlier granted to one Pradip Singh, has been transferred in favour of the writ petitioner, on March 23, 2010, subject to replacement of the vehicle covered under the said permit. The writ petitioner replaced the vehicle on March 30, 2010by introducing the present vehicle which is hypothecated to the WBTIDC. The new vehicle is No. WB- 04E/3525.
(4) According to the petitioner, since thereafter he has been regularly plying the said vehicle, by virtue of the permit as above and his permit remains valid till February 21, 2025. That all on a sudden, the cancellation order of his permit, pursuant to the resolution of the RTA Board dated October 10, 2023, is like a bolt from the blue for him. He says that the same is bereft of due compliance with the formalities as per the Page 3 of 23 statute as well as the principles of natural justice, which has rendered the same as illegal and a nullity.
(5) The petitioner would further say that the till October 17, 2023, he has remitted EMI to the WBTIDC, for the said vehicle possessed by him, which has been duly received by the same. He has produced EMI receipts, of the said vehicle (bus). (6) According to the petitioner, gross illegality and unfair events happened, since from 2019 and that at the instance of the respondent No.4. The status of the respondent No. 4 was that of an applicant, who has applied for grant of permit on the route No.71. The first writ petition filed by the respondent No.4, was WP No. 4578 (w) of 2019. The present petitioner has not been made a party there. The respondent No.4 has contended therein, that the fleet strength of 40 on route No.71 has been filled up and no vacancy was available there initially. But allegedly without any cogent and sufficient documents, it has further been contended therein, that an operator who has replaced his vehicle under JNNURM Scheme [that is the present writ petitioner], has stopped plying his bus for the last three years on the said route and has surrendered his vehicle. And since, there has arisen a vacancy in his place. The writ Page 4 of 23 petitioner says that application for grant of permit by the respondent No.4 was, however, rejected by the Board, on the ground of no vacancy being available on route No.71, at that point of time.
(7) The Court disposed of the said writ petition, vide order dated April 9, 2019, a portion of which may be reproduced, as herein below:
"Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this th Court is of the view that the 24 vacancy created within the notified strength of 40 requires to be treated as a distinct Vacancy within the notified vacancy position. The RTA, Kolkata cannot at this stage st legalise the 41 permit holder by adjusting his additional permit th against the 24 vacancy on the logic of depressing the collective vacancy to 40.
th The petitioner, therefore, deserves to be considered against the 24 vacancy as created treating the notified strength to be 40. It will be open to the RTA, Kolkata to treat the additional vacancy of one beyond the notified strength of 40 in the manner as deserving per law."
(8) The fact emerged during hearing of the writ petition WP No. 4578 (w) of 2019, is that on the said route No.71, not 40, but 41 permits have been issued. Hence permits have been issued beyond the fleet strength. The respondent authorities made endeavor to accommodate the 41st permit holder within the fleet strength. That was however, turned down by the Court, which Page 5 of 23 directed that the vacancy if any at the 24th position, was a distinct one, within the notified vacancy position. For the said reason, it has to be filled up, not by legalizing permit of the person beyond the notified fleet strength, but only in accordance with law. The decision of the Board thereby rejecting grant of permit to the respondent No.4 was set aside by the Court and the Board was directed to consider for grant of permit to the respondent No.4, afresh.
(9) The writ petitioner says that he being not a party to the said case being WP No. 4578 (w) of 2019, the entire proceedings and the order of the Court was behind his back and beyond his knowledge.
(10) The writ petitioner says that the Board considered the matter afresh, in its meeting dated May 6, 2019. There also, neither he was informed nor invited to take part. Be that as it may, the Board's decision has been as follows:
"(8) W.P. No. 4578 (w) of 2019, Shobha Singh-vs-The State of West Bengal & Ors.
In compliance with order of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta dated 09.04.2019 respectively regarding the Writ Page 6 of 23 Petition noted above, the Writ Petitioner has been issued notice for hearing before the RTA Board Meeting scheduled on 06.05.2019.
Prayer of petitioner for grant of State Carriage Permit in Route No. 71 which is a notified route with a fleet strength of 40. The WBTIDCL owned vehicle that has been plying in excess of the fleet strength of 40 Le. It has been the 41the vehicle in the said route. As the vehicle has stopped plying the number of vehicles in this routes stands at 40 and as per with the fleet strength of 40. There is no vacancy in this route at present.
Hon'ble Justice, Subrata Talukdar has passed an order relating to this matter and directed the RTA Kolkata for taking a fresh decision on the issue.
To take decision accordingly.
**** The order of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in connection with Writ Petition No. 4578 (W) of 2019 has been perused by the RTA Board. After hearing the petitioners it is decided that:-
(a) The Total Fleeth Strength of Route No. 71 is 40.
(b) The WBTIDCL owned and under agreement being running on the route by one Sri Rahul Chandra and having Registration NO. WB-04A/3525 was the 41 vehicle of the said route.
(c) The vehicle no. WB-04A/3525 thus running under permit from RTA, Kolkata on Route No. 71 was in excess of the route strength of 40.
(d) It is reported that the Vehicle/bus has stopped plying on the said route.
(e) If the above mentioned information is correct then the permit for the said vehicle is to be cancelled immediately.Page 7 of 23
(f) If the above information is incorrect and the vehicle is still plying then the vehicle's permit should be cancelled with immediate effect.
(g) This will bring from the total permit strength on route NO. 71 to 40.
(h) As this is the notified permit strength on the said route so there will be 'No Vacancy' on the route itself.
(i) Under the circumstances, the question of accommodating the petitioner to the 24th vacancy on the permit strength does not arise also.
(j) Hence, the petitioner's application is considered, the petitioner heard and her petition is rejected."
(11) Here the Board has contended that the WBTIDCL owned vehicle [No. WB-04E/3525, which is possessed and run by the writ petitioner], has been plying in excess of the fleet strength of 40, being the 41st vehicle on the said route. The Board records that the said vehicle has stopped plying and also says that since the said vehicle has stopped plying, only the 40 permit holders were now operating on the said route, as per the notified fleet strength. The Board would also say that that there would not be any vacancy available on the route, at that point of time. The Board virtually decides therein, that the permit of the present writ petitioner has to be cancelled. The prayer of the respondent No.4 was also rejected by it on the ground of no vacancy being available.Page 8 of 23
(12) The said decision of the Board, vide resolution dated May 6, 2019, has been challenged by the respondent No. 4, by filing yet another writ petition, that is WP No. 17233 (w) of 2019. Again for the second time, allegedly purportedly and motivatedly, the present writ petitioner has been left out of the array of the respondents therein.
(13) If one looks into the contentions of the respondent No.4, in the said writ petition, can see that the respondent No.4 has stated that in the year 2004, the permit No. 029/71/NEW/2004 was issued in favour of one Pradip Singh, for the vehicle No.WBU-
2171. In 2009/10, the said vehicle was replaced with the WBTIDC owned vehicle No. WB-04E/3525. The operator plied the vehicle WB-04E/3525, till 2017. According to the respondent No.4, as stated in the writ petition WP No. 17233 (w) of 2019, the 41st permit on the route was issued to one Parimal Das, in the month of August 2015, being No. 045/71/New/2015, for the vehicle No. WB-11C/7409. Thus, the respondent No.4 has stated therein that 41st permit on the said route has never been issued to the present writ petitioner, as held in the Board's decision dated May 6, 2019. The Page 9 of 23 respondent No.4 has termed such decision of the Board, vide resolution dated May 6, 2019, as malafide and illegal. (14) The Court has disposed of the writ petition WP No. 17233 (w) of 2019, vide order dated March 31, 2023, relevant portion of which may be extracted as herein below:
"The order of the coordinate Bench is crystal clear and does not require further clarification. The Court held that the 41st permit holder could not have been adjusted against the 24th vacancy in order to restrict the fleet strength to 40. The Court decided that the petitioner deserved to be considered against 24th vacancy as created treating the notified strength to be 40. A fresh decision was directed to be taken by the authority on the issue of treating the additional vacancy of key and the notified strength of 40 in the manner as deserving per law. In other words, it was decided by the coordinate Bench that the petitioner was entitled to be adjusted against the 24th vacancy treating the notified strength to be 40. There was no further scope for the authority to reconsider the issue in violation of the order of the Court. The limited scope for the authority was to take a decision on the additional vehicle which was granted permit despite there being no vacancy at the relevant point of time.
In view of the above, this Court is inclined to hold that since clear and unambiguous direction was given by the coordinate Bench to the authority in the earlier writ petition, the authority could not have taken the resolution impugned in violation of the said order.
Accordingly, the resolution impugned in so far as the vehicle of the petitioner is concerned be set aside.Page 10 of 23
The concerned authority, being the 2nd respondent herein is directed to comply with the direction of this Court given the order dated 9th April, 2019 in WP No. 4578(W) of 2019 in its letter and spirit within two weeks from the date of communication of this order."
(15) It is pertinent to note that the Court has not entered into the question as to who occupies the 24th or 41st position or that whether the present writ petitioner occupies either the 24th or 41st position.
(16) The things take the most interesting turn, when pursuant to the direction of the Court vide order dated March 31, 2023, the Board again considers the matter and adopts a resolution dated October 10, 2023, as follows:
"Resolution:- The RTA Board scrupulously discussed the matter & decided to comply the direction contained in the order dt. 31.03.2023, passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in W.P.A. No. 17233 of 2019 & consequent upon order of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta, the RTA Board decided to cancel the permit bearing no. 029/71/NEW/2005 in respect of vehicle WB-04E/3525 & vacate the position twenty four (24) of route 71 as directed by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta and the RTA Board also decided to issue Offer Letter in favour of the petitioner, Shobha Singh."Page 11 of 23
(17) Now the Board holds that the 24th permit No. 029/71/NEW/2005, of the present writ petitioner should be cancelled [with respect to vehicle No. WB-04E/3525], to vacate the 24th position of route No.71 as directed by the Hon'ble High Court Calcutta. And the offer letter is to be issued in favour of the respondent No.4. Since the Board assembled pursuant to the Court's order dated March 31, 2023, it may be presumed that the Board has meant the said order to be have directed it to vacate the 24th position in the fleet strength, on route No.71. Nevertheless, in none of the order of the Court, any direction can be found to have been made, to cancel a valid permit, without following the due procedure under the law. (18) On the contrary the divergent stand of the Board, vide its resolutions dated May 6, 2019 and October 10, 2023, is overtly evident. As quoted earlier, in the resolution dated May 6, 2019, the Board has considered the present petitioner as the 41st permit holder on the route and beyond the fleet strength and contemplates cancellation of his permit. The same Board, in its resolution dated October 10, 2023, addresses the present petitioner as the 24th permit holder and vacates his position, cancelling his permit. On neither of the occasions the Page 12 of 23 Board has referred to any record, to ascertain the actual position of permit No. 029/71/NEW/2005 and whether the vehicle No. WB-04E/3525 was covered under the permit No. 029/71/NEW/2005 or not.
(19) According to the writ petitioner cancellation of his permit, vide resolution dated October 10, 2023, is bad in the eye of law, is illegal, a nullity in the eye of law and thus, the said decision of the Board is liable to be set aside.
(20) Mr. Saha Roy who appears for the petitioner, would firstly say, that all the orders of the Court have been procured behind the back of his client. Though he being a necessary party, has never been impleaded as such, in the writ petitions filed by the respondent No.4 earlier. That, he has never been heard by the Board, before taking decision with respect to the permit held by him validly and in accordance with the law. Hence, his right of audience has been severely jeopardized. Therefore, ultimately when his permit has been cancelled by the Board, without following the due procedure of law and the principles of natural justice, his right to life as guaranteed under the Constitution has been affected adversely. Mr. Saha Roy would say that Page 13 of 23 therefore such decision of the Board would not be tenable under the law.
(21) Mr. Saha Roy would submit that it would be erroneous for the respondent authority to state that the impugned resolution was adopted, as per the direction of this Court. He would say that even in that case, the Court has power to revisit its own decision, in an eventuality, when the same has decided without hearing the necessary party, that is, the writ petitioner, due to mala fide and motivated non-impleadment of him by the respondent No. 4, in the earlier writ petitions. In this regard, he would refer to the following portion of the Supreme Court judgment in Shivdev Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & ors., reported in AIR 1963 SC 1909, is quoted below:-
"10. ******* It is sufficient to say that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. Here the previous order of Khosla, J., affected the interests of persons who were not made parties to the proceeding before him. It was at their instance and for giving them a hearing that Khosla, J., entertained the second petition. In doing so, he merely did what the principles of natural justice required him to do. It is said that the respondents before us had no right to apply for Page 14 of 23 review because they were not parties to the previous proceedings. As we have already pointed out, it is precisely because they were not made parties to the previous proceedings, though their interests were sought to be affected by the decision of the High Court, that the second application was entertained by Khosla, J."
(22) He would also refer to the judgment of this Court in Dinabandhu Mallick vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2008 SCC OnLine Cal 759, for the similar proposition, in following words:-
"4. In my opinion, however, this Court has inherent power to review its own order in whatever form an application is filed for reviewing such order. The order which has been assailed in the present writ petition was passed by this Court only and as such under normal circumstances this would be proper Court having jurisdiction to review such order. It is true that the petitioner herein has made an application not in the form of a review but as a fresh writ petition only. In the case of Shib Deo Singh v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1963 SC 1909, such a course has also been held to be a permissible course for correcting a wrong order.
5.******* The order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 19618 (W) of 2004 was passed on the basis of wrong assumption about the actual identity of the holder of the dealership licence, and such error requires correction.Page 15 of 23
Otherwise, an injustice caused by an erroneous order of the Court would be allowed to continue.
6. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the matter should be considered afresh by the District Controller, Food and Supplies, Hooghly in terms of the circular dated 28th February, 2006 or any other earlier circular which may be relevant for consideration of application for dealership of the specified kin of a deceased dealer for engagement in the vacancies created by the death of an existing dealer. The order passed by this Court in. W.P. No. 1961 (W) of 2004 dated 18th June, 2008 is accordingly set aside."
(23) The RTA, Kolkata and its Secretary being respondent No. 2 and 3 in this writ petition, have filed a report. Mr. Deb Roy, Ld. A.G.P. has relied on the same. The said respondents have conceded to the fact that the petitioner has been an operator on route No. 71, having permit No. 029/71/NEW/2005 and covering vehicle No. WB-04E/3525, vide the said permit. It has stated further that the respondent No. 4, in all her writ petitions has contended about the present petitioner having stopped plying his vehicle, on the route and his permit thus having been rendered as non-operative. The said respondent have contended that by virtue of a notice the present writ petitioner appeared before the Secretary, RTA, Kolkata Region, on October 5, 2023 and gave undertaking that he would operate till, the Page 16 of 23 period of validity of the permit exists, that is till February 21, 2025. The said respondents have stated that, since in a contempt proceeding, they have been afforded with the last opportunity to comply with the Court's order dated October 4, 2023, the Board held in the meeting dated October 10, 2023, "to comply with the directions contained in the order dated 31st March, 2023 passed by the Hon'ble Court in WPA No. 17233 of 2019 by issuing the offer letter in favour of the respondent No. 4 herein after cancelling the permit bearing No. 029/71/NEW/2005 issued in favour of the petitioner herein and vacate the 24th position of permit holders of Route No. 71 as directed by this Hon'ble Court in its earlier order." (24) The respondent No. 4, would submit about the Court's direction to be there, to fill up the 24th vacant position by her, thereby granting her new permit, as against the 24th vacant position. (25) Pertinent is to note that in its order dated March 31, 2023, the Court has recorded its findings that in accordance with the Court's order dated April 9, 2019, an interpretation thereof may be that the respondent No. 4 would be entitled to be adjusted against the 24the vacancy, treating the notified strength to be 40 ["in other words, it was decided by the coordinate Bench that Page 17 of 23 the petitioner was entitled to be adjusted against the 24 th vacancy treating the notified strength to be 40"- per the Court's order dated March 31, 2023]. Let it also be noted here that such an observation has been made by the Court, in a case, in which the original permit holder, that is the writ petitioner, has not been made a party.
(26) Here emerges the most important question, as to whether the 24th position in the fleet strength of 40, on route No. 71 was vacant at all, or not. Because, the question of adjustment of respondent No. 4 would arise there, only after ascertainment of the fact, that the said 24th position lied vacant, due to the writ petitioner not operating.
(27) That, the petitioner has been operating during the validity of his permit, that is till the date of abrupt cancellation of his permit vide resolution dated October 10, 2023, is evident from the report submitted by the respondent No. 2 and 3, who say that the petitioner has undertaken to ply his vehicle during the validity period of his permit that is, till February 21, 2025 and also from the documents submitted by the reporting officer, in this case, as discussed earlier. The purport of the Court's order dated March 31, 2023 can never be that even unless there is a Page 18 of 23 vacancy in the 24th position, in the fleet strength of 40 on route No. 71, the respondent No. 4 should have been adjusted in that position, dislodging the valid permit holder, by cancelling his permit, without due compliance with the statutory provision. This would be rather in violation of the Court's order itself, which speaks about adjustment of the respondent No. 4, against the vacant 24th position, not by making it to be vacated by cancelling the existing permit of someone else. In this way, the impugned resolution is not only illegal but is a gross manifestation of sheer non application of mind and arbitrary exercise of power, by the concerned Board.
(28) The Board in its resolution dated May 6, 2019, has held that the vehicle No. WB-04E/3525 has been operating under permit from RTA, Kolkata on route No. 71 in excess of the route strength of 40 (resolution 8(c), quoted above), it has also resolved there that the permit for the said vehicle is to be cancelled immediately (resolution 8(e) and (f) quoted above). (29) Therefore, in the said resolution the RTA Board considered the petitioners permit to be in excess of the fleet strength of 40, on route No. 71, that is, 41st permit.
Page 19 of 23(30) However, in resolution dated October 10, 2023, the same Board has considered the permit of the petitioner to be 24th permit in the fleet strength of 40 on route No. 71. (31) Therefore it appears that the Board itself is in two minds, a dilemma, as to which position the permit of the petitioner is to be placed. Even if the Court considers that the earlier resolution of the Board dated May 6, 2019 has been overwritten by the subsequent resolution of the Board dated October 10, 2023, thereby ensuring the petitioner's position at the 24th place in the fleet strength, the Board having conceded itself to the fact that the petitioner holds the permit and operates in terms of the same till the time the permit validity is expired, that is, February 21, 2025, cannot cancel the same without following the due procedure under the law.
(32) As to what should be the grounds of cancellation of a valid permit, has been enumerated under Section 86 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Let that be quoted as quoted below:-
"86. Cancellation and suspension of permits.--
(1) The transport authority which granted a permit may cancel the permit or may suspend it for such period as it thinks fit--Page 20 of 23
(a) on the breach of any condition specified in section 84 or of any condition contained in the permit, or 53
(b) if the holder of the permit uses or causes or allows a vehicle to be used in any manner not authorised by the permit, or
(c) if the holder of the permit ceases to own the vehicle covered by the permit, or
(d) if the holder of the permit has obtained the permit by fraud or misrepresentation, or
(e) if the holder of the goods carriage permit, fails without reasonable cause, to use the vehicle for the purposes for which the permit was granted, or
(f) if the holder of the permit acquires the citizenship of any foreign country:
Provided that no permit shall be suspended or cancelled unless an opportunity has been given to the holder of the permit to furnish his explanation."
Even regarding the grounds as mentioned in Section 86(1)(a), (b) and (e), the authority may not cancel or suspend the permit, as the case may be by recovering a sum of money agreed upon, in terms of Section 86(5) of the Act of 1988.
Furthermore as per proviso to Section 86(1) the petitioner's permit would not be amenable to any order of Page 21 of 23 suspension or cancellation unless the opportunity has been given to the petitioner, who holds the permit, to furnish his explanation.
(33) Admittedly, in this case, no such audience has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, before cancellation of his permit.
(34) Therefore, on the two scores that is the permit of the petitioner being cancelled in absence of compliance of any of the Clauses as enumerated in Section 86(1) of the 1988 Act and also in absence of the writ petitioner having been afforded any opportunity to furnish his explanation as regards proposed cancellation of his permit, the resolution adopted by the Board on October 10, 2023, appears to be not in compliance with the statutory provisions. At the cost of reiteration, this Court further notes that the impugned resolution has been adopted without ascertaining whether the 24th position of the fleet strength is actually vacant or not. The resolution dated October 10, 2023, therefore, would not be eligible to be sustained for the reasons as stated above.
(35) Hence, the said resolution dated October 10,2023 by the respondent/Regional Transport Authority Board, Kolkata Page 22 of 23 Region as regards cancellation of the permit of the writ petitioner vide resolution No. 4 is set aside.
(36) This writ petition is disposed of by directing the RTA, Kolkata Region to take into consideration the observations of this Court, as made above, in this judgment and decide upon the related issues as involved in the present case, in the light of those observations, after giving adequate opportunity to the writ petitioner as well as any other person having interest in the matter. Its decision would be recorded by dint of a reasoned order and communicated to the petitioner and the other interested person, if any.
(37) Let the RTA, Kolkata Region conclude the entire process as above within the period of six weeks from the date of communication of this judgment and communicate its reasoned order to the petitioner and the other interested party, if any, within one week from the date of its order.
(38) Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the petition are deemed not to be admitted.Page 23 of 23
(39) Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)