Dilip Kumar Samanta vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 6 August, 2015

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Dilip Kumar Samanta vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 6 August, 2015

_________ Sri Dilip Kumar Samanta, Learned Counsel appears for the writ petitioner in W.P. 9524 (W) of 2015. Sri Samanta submits that the writ petitioner is an existing operator in respect of an inter-State route Giridih to Andal More. The permit was originally granted in 1984 to the writ petitioner on the interregional route Chirkunda to Giridih by the North Chhotanagpur Regional Transport Authority, 2 Hazaribagh. Thereafter in 1986 the petitioner applied before the STA, Bihar for extension of the route upto Asansol. The extension of the route as prayed for by the petitioner was allowed by the STA, West Bengal, the countersigning Authority in 1987.

In the same year i.e. 1987 the North Chhotonagpur Regional Transport Authority, Hazaribagh endorsed two vehicles in the permit of the petitioner for completing two round trips with additional trip from Chirkunda to Giridih. Sri Samanta submits that since the route now falls within the State of Jharkhand, the permit has been renewed from time to time for the past two decades and the petitioner is now allowed to make two round trips in respect of two vehicles upto Andal More. At the time of every renewal by the STA, Jharkhand the permit has been duly countersigned by the STA, West Bengal.

In this writ petition the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that although the STA, Jharkhand renewed the permit with its usual conditions on 27th of February, 2015 for a period of five years valid upto 14th of July, 2020, till date such permit has not been countersigned by the STA, West Bengal for operating two vehicles completing two round trips daily.

Sri Amal Kumar Sen, Learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondents takes this Court to page 31 of the W.P. 9524 (W) of 2015 and points out that in respect of a single permanent inter-State stage carriage permit, the petitioner is operating two vehicles between Giridih to Andal More which make four round trips daily.

Next, taking this Court to the contents of the Regional Transport Agreement signed between the two States, Sri Sen emphasises the provisions of Clause 2(g) thereof:-

"2. STAGE CARRIAGE

g) It is agreed upon between the two States that a Single permit with 4(four) trips per day (2 ups X 2 downs) may be granted where length of the route is up to 100 kms. And single permit with 2 (two) trips per day (1 up X 1 down) may be granted where the length of the route is more than 100 kms. But not more than 300 kms. If the length of route is more than 300 kms.

one single permit with one trip may be granted."

Sri Sen further points out that the total length of the route in this case is 121 kms. and such will appear from the Regional Transport Agreement of the year 2004 itself. Therefore, having regard to the provisions of Clause 2(g) (supra) in respect of a route having length more than 100 kms. but less than 300 kms. under a single permit only two trips per day is allowable. The petitioner, therefore, has been clearly erroneously granted four round trips in violation of Clause 2(g) of the reciprocal transport agreement which governs the grant of permits between the two States of West Bengal and Jharkhand.

It is the further argument of Learned State Counsel that the permit can be countersigned only in accordance with law and the proposal of the STA, Jharkhand renewing the permit in the year 2015 for four round trips is in violation of the reciprocal transport agreement.

Sri Shankar Nath Mukherjee, Learned Counsel appears in the analogous matter being W.P. 778 of 2015 and submits that Sri 4 Samanta's client does not have a legal right to operate four round trips against the single permit for the route which is more than 100 kms. and less than 300 kms. in violation of the reciprocal transport agreement.

Sri Arabinda Chatterjee, Learned Counsel appearing for the State-respondents in W.P. 778 of 2015 also adopts the stand of Sri Sen, Learned State Counsel as recorded above.

Having heard the parties and considering the materials on record, this Court is satisfied that the countersignature by the STA, West Bengal can be done only in accordance with the permit conditions of the reciprocal transport agreement as argued by Sri Sen, Learned State Counsel today.

Since STA, Jharkhand is represented in Court today by Sri Binod Kumar Gupta, Learned Counsel, it is directed that STA, West Bengal will clarify the position in respect of the permit of Sri Samanta's client having regard to the contents of the reciprocal transport agreement with the STA, Jharkhand within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order and, on receipt of a proper renewal with an endorsed time-table from the STA, Jharkhand the permit of the petitioner shall be countersigned in accordance with law by the STA, West Bengal within a period of two weeks thereafter.

Since no affidavit-in-opposition is used, the allegations made in the writ petition shall be deemed not to have been admitted.

The writ petitions being W.P. 9524 (W) of 2015 and W.P. 778 of 2015 stand accordingly disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.

(Subrata Talukdar, J.)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)