Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Satyajit Saha vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 14 December, 2011
Author: Debasish Kar Gupta
Bench: Debasish Kar Gupta
1
14.12.2011.
W.P. No. 21215 (W) of 2011
Satyajit Saha
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Niraj Gupta,
Mrs. Jyoti Singh
...For the Petitioner.
Mrs. Shabana Hasin
...For the State.
Let affidavit‐of‐service be kept on record.
This writ application is directed against an order dated
August 4, 2011 passed by the respondent No.3 rejecting the
application of the petitioner dated August 19, 2005 for granting a contract carriage permit in his favour for plying a vehicle (Maxi‐ cab) in the Jalpaiguri district.
Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties as also after considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the decision was taken by the respondent No.3 in accordance with the provisions of Section 69 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The respondent No.2 was under obligation to take a decision in respect of the application of the petitioner dated August 19, 2005. Therefore, the impugned order was passed by the respondent No.3 without jurisdiction. 2 Secondly, the ground for rejecting the above application was congestion of the route in question. Under the provisions of clause (a) of sub‐section (3) of Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, restriction on plying of contract carriages in respect of a city route having population of five lacs can only be imposed after issuing notifications by the Central Government as also the State Government. No such notification was mentioned in the impugned order. Nor any notification to that effect is produced before this Court in course of hearing. Therefore, the above ground cannot be sustained in law.
In view of the discussions and observations made hereinabove, the impugned order is quashed and set aside.
I direct the respondent No.2 to take a decision in the above matter in the light of the above observations within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.
The respondent No.4 is directed to communicate such decision to the petitioner within a week from the date of such decision.
This writ application is, thus, disposed of. There will be, however, no order as to costs. 3
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, subject to compliance with all necessary formalities.
srm ( Debasish Kar Gupta, J. )