Calcutta High Court
M/S. Ghosh Transport Bus Service vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 6 December, 2017
Author: Mir Dara Sheko
Bench: Mir Dara Sheko
ORDER SHEET
WP No.675 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
M/S. GHOSH TRANSPORT BUS SERVICE
Versus
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE MIR DARA SHEKO
Date : 6th December, 2017.
Appearance:
Mr. Prabhat Kr. Chattopadhyay, Adv.
Md. T.M. Siddiqui Sr. Adv.
Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Azim Md. Sebir, Adv.
The Court: Heard Mr. Prabhat Kr. Chattopadhayay learned Counsel
representing the writ petitioner and also Md. T.M. Siddiqui learned Senior
Counsel representing the State respondents.
Let the affidavit of service as filed by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner be kept on record.
The grievance of the writ petitioner is, the writ petitioner was having route permit in the route of Kharagpur Railway Station to Bandel Railway Station via C.K. Road Khirpai, Arambag, from 30th June, 2000 which was renewed time to time and it was valid up to 29th June, 2015. Three days before 29.06.2015 the writ petitioner applied for renewal of the same route permit on 26th June, 2015. Since that prayer was not being considered the 2 writ petitioner had filed writ petition no.1083 of 2015 where this Court in disposing of said writ petition on 2nd December, 2015 directed the State Transport Authority West Bengal to decide the prayer for renewal made by the writ petitioner vide his application dated 23rd June, 2015 received by the STA, West Bengal on 26th June, 2015 within a period of three weeks in accordance with law.
In turn the State Transport Authority rejected the said application with the following observation:-
"The petitioner appeared with Ld. Advocate, Mr. Prabhat Kumar Chattopadhyay. It was found from records that the vehicle No.WB 33A 5689, which has been placed by the petitioner is registered in the name of the Tapas Das and leased with Shyamal Kumar Ghosh. In accordance with the provisions laid down under Section 2(30) read with relevant portion of chapter-IV of the M.V. Act, 1988, the permit holder has not yet become a lawful owner of the vehicle following proper procedure of registering a vehicle taken on lease agreement. Members of STA decided that renewal of the permit would be allowed provided the permit holder places a lawfully owned vehicle in accordance with law and fulfils other required conditions including payment of required fees etc."
The aforesaid order thus indicates that the prayer of the petitioner for renewal was declined on the ground that the permit holder did not yet become a lawful owner of the vehicle and the permit would be allowed only when the permit holder could have placed a lawful owned vehicle by fulfilling other required conditions.
Section 2 Sub-section (30) defines the term "owner" which runs as follows:-
"Owner" means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an 3 agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement;"
Therefore, it is very apparent that the State Transport Authority rather misinterpreted the provision laid down under Section 2 sub-Section (30) of the Act.. However, the writ petitioner being so declined by the aforesaid order dated 8th April, 2016 of the State Transport Authority again moved before this Court and this Court again interpreting Section 2 sub-Section (30) of the Act directed the respondent authorities to complete the entire exercise in terms of the order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks, not later than six weeks from the date of its communication.
As it is pointed out by Mr.Chattopadhyay, in the tune of the assertion made in paragraph 22 of the writ petition that all the documents referred to therein have been submitted before the State Transport Authority for their consideration in compliance to the order of the Hon'ble High Court, but it reveals however, that the State Transport Authority though complied with the order, but it has complied in different angle creating some unnecessary hardship causing violation of natural justice, specially when, the writ petitioner apparently had no otherwise flaws in the matter of having the route permit in the subject route.
Mr. Siddhiki appearing for the respondents submits that the State Transport Authority tried to impress upon the Court that the State Transport Authority has complied with the order of the Court since the consideration should have to be made after being satisfied to the formalities in accordance with law.
4
So far as the documents as appended to the writ petition as discussed above including the orders of the Court, there is no doubt but to criticize that since inception, the writ petition was treated with some apparent discrimination for the reason best known by the authority for which on and again on approach this Court, referred to above, had to intervene to give directions.
The impugned order of the STA which is criticized by the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner for better appraisal is set out:
"i) All upto date documents of the proposed vehicle bearing registration no. WB 33C/ 3786.
ii) Conclusive proof(s) regarding his sole proprietorship in respect of the said permit.
iii) Proper Photograph of the proposed vehicle and
iv) Deposition of requisite late fine, to the tune of Rs.14,500 only, for the period from 26.6.15 to 05.9.17"
Aforesaid clauses however, go to show that the authority could not reject the prayer for renewal of the route permit but had put obviously some hardships. Let it be considered whether putting all those hardships were really necessary ! So far as the formality mentioned in Clause no.1, there may not be any difficulty to comply once more although from the assertion of the writ petition (paragraph 22), it reveals that copies of all relevant documents have already been placed by the writ petitioner before the authority. Now from the second Clause the word "conclusive" proof and the next word "sole" proprietorship are virtually unknown in the Act. Similarly, in the Clause 3 "proper" photograph is unknown in the Act itself. Was is it at all necessary to put those words like "conclusive" or "sole" or "proper" words in the impugned 5 order for obtaining compliance from the writ petitioner ? Because what would be "conclusive" and what would be "proper" it remained within the mind of the authority and it was not disclosed. Again if one comes back within the definition of owner within the ambit of Section 2 sub-Section (30) then, there is no word like 'Sole' proprietorship, rather, the definition of ownership has been stretched for the purpose of the Act as quoted above. Had it been so, then by putting those words in the impugned order inviting compliance is bad in law rather perverse which requires interference by the writ Court since those have created unwarranted discrimination.
Further, in respect of item no.4 payment of late fee to the tune of Rs.14,500/- for the period from 26.6.2015 to 5.9.2017 was directed. If at all there is provision for collection of late fee then it could have been for any fault or wilful laches of the writ petitioner. In the case on hand I find that the permit of the writ petitioner was supposed to be expired on 29th June, 2015, whereas, the application for its renewal was signed by the owner on 23rd June, 2015 and it was received at the office of the authority on 26th June, 2015 i.e., 3 days before expiry of the permit, and it was declined on the ground as mentioned hereinbefore, and, since thereafter the writ petitioner had to be involved in the Court's proceeding to seek relief and ultimately the impugned order was passed by the State Transport Authority not by rejecting prayer of writ petitioner, but by putting the hardships. When there was no fault really on the part of the writ petitioner then why he would pay late fine? Therefore, the Clause (iv) of the impugned order being also held as perverse, is liable to be eliminated. Meaning thereby, had there been no earlier compliance as regards 6 submission of documents, the writ petitioner is directed to place all up-to-date documents relating to the vehicle bearing registration no.WB 33C/ 3786, the route permit of which has been expired on 29th June, 2015 and photograph of the exterior and interior of the said vehicle before the State Transport Authority within a period of ten days and in turn, the State Transport Authority shall examine the papers and the vehicle and shall renew the route permit in favour of the writ petitioner in accordance with law and to hand over the same if the vehicle is otherwise in order within a period of three weeks thereafter, since, the other clauses or the terms except some of those, within the impugned order dated 18th October, 2017 passed by the State Transport Authority by the above observations are set aside and quashed.
(MIR DARA SHEKO, J.) sp/dg2