Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mahiuddin Mallick vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 12 June, 2013
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1
20 12.6.13
Sc W. P. No. 16390 (W) OF 2013
------------
Mahiuddin Mallick
- vs.-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Biswapriya Samanta ....For the Petitioner.
Mr. Khandakar Moazzem Hossain .....For the State.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the State Transport Authority, West Bengal (hereafter the S.T.A.)dated 20th November, 2012, whereby his prayer for extension of route from Midnapore to Kharagpur has been refused on the ground that the same would not be in conformity with the relevant provisions of law for extension of route.
It is further observed therein that "The extension should be straightway from one of the termini and not covering up and down journeys on any part of the route alignment."
I have heard Mr. Samanta, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Hossain for the State. I fail to comprehend as to how the prayer for extension made by the petitioner could be labelled as not in conformity with the relevant provisions of law.
It appears from the time table issued in favour of the petitioner that he is authorised to stop his vehicle at Seharabazar, Arambag, Kamarpukur Chatti, Ramjibanpur, Khirpai, C.K.Town, Baradeowl and Keshpur, while traversing the route between Burdwan and Midnapore. In terms of the permit issued in his favour, the petitioner is not required to touch Kharagpur at all. If the extension, as prayed for were granted, the petitioner would have to traverse the route Burdwan to Kharagpur via Seharabazar, Arambag, Kamarpukur Chatti, Ramjibanpur, Khirpai, C.K.Town, Baradeowl, Keshpur, and Midnapore. In that view of the matter, the prayer of the petitioner for extension of route by alteration of the terminus at 2 Midnapore does not appear to be one which is contrary to the provisions of the law. The only requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 80 is that the alteration shall not be allowed unless the authority is satisfied that the travelling public would be benefited by it. It appears that this aspect of the statute has not been given due consideration by the State Transport Authority, West Bengal. The prayer of the petitioner, therefore, requires reconsideration.
Accordingly, while upholding the part of the decision whereby the petitioner's prayer for extension was rejected with reference to the new permit bearing no.P.St.P.243/2010, I set aside the remaining portion of the decision and direct the S.T.A. to de novo consider the prayer for extension and alteration of terminus strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from date of receipt of a copy of this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously.
(Dipankar Datta,J.)