Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Subodh Kumar Kundu vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 19 April, 2017
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
19.04.2017.
rc
W.P. No.11116(W) of 2017
Subodh Kumar Kundu
Versus
State of West Bengal & Anr.
Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee
Mrs. Kakoli Dutta ... For the Petitioner
Mr. Rameswar Bhattacharjee
Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee .. For the respondent no.8
Mr. Amal Kumar Sen Mrs. Ashima Das (Sil) ... For the State The petitioner complains that inspite of a valid permit subsisting in favour of the petitioner, the respondent no.8 had obstructed plying of his bus in the permissible route.
Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petition possesses a valid licence. The vehicle of the petitioner was obstructed by the men of the respondent no. 8. The petitioner had lodged a complaint to the police authorities. The police authorities did not take steps. The petitioner had lodged complaint with the authorities granting the permit. Such authorities have also not taken any steps. Consequently, the petitioner has approached this Court.
The State is represented.
Learned advocate for the State submits that, there is a valid subsisting permit in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to ply the vehicle in adherence to the terms and conditions of the permit. He submits that it is not for the permit granting authority to take up the law and order issue. According to him, the issue is a law and order problem.
Learned advocate for the respondent no. 8 submits that, although the respondent no. 8 is the secretary of an association of Balurghat Motor Owners, neither the respondent 2 no. 8 nor any member of the association of Balurghat had obstructed the plying of the vehicle of the petitioner. He submits that, this Court does not have the requisite determination to try and determine the instant writ petition. According to him, the writ petition relates to a police inaction. The Court does not have the determination over such subject-matter. He relies upon a Division Bench reported at AIR 1990 Calcutta 168 (Sohan Lal Baid Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) in support of the proposition that a Court which does not have the determination to hear the writ petition should not take up such matter. He submits that, there a commonality of alignment of 291 KMs between the routes of the petitioner and the other routes in which the members of the Balurghat Bus Owners' Association ply. The association had made a complaint to the appropriate authorities. Such complaint since has not been disposed of till date. He submits that, a number of buses are allowed to ply within a period of 3 minutes from 08.30 A.M. to 08.33 A.M. everyday. That according to him is an unhealthy competition which prejudices the existing permit-holders. The existing permit-holders are existing much prior in point of time than the permit of the petitioner. He refers to section 202 of the Motor Vehicles Act and submits that, it is for the police to take action. He refers to Rules 118 and 119 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules and submits that, it is for the authorities to decide on the complaint made by the association.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.
The first issue as to the lack of determination to try, entertain and determine the instant writ petition is to be decided first. Sohan Lal Baid (Supra) is of the view that, the Court cannot hear a matter which does not fall within the determination of such Court. In the present case, the petitioner alleges inaction on the part of the motor vehicles authority in ensuring that the petitioner is able to ply the motor vehicle in terms of the conditions of the permit. In addition thereto, the petitioner points out that, the petitioner had made a complaint to the police authorities which have not been acted upon. The portion of the 3 grievances of the petitioner which is directed to the permit granting authority is within the determination of this Court. Incidentally directions are required to be given to the police authorities, which divested of the first grievance is not within the determination of this Court. However, the writ petition is a composite one. It is not permissible for the Court to dissect two reliefs and direct the petitioner to canvas a portion of the relief in one Court and have the relief so far as the other portion is concerned from another Court. In the instant case, it cannot be said that, this Court is divested of the jurisdiction or the determination for the entirety of the causes of action of the petitioner or the grievances of the petitioner. A portion of the grievance and a substantial portion of that is within the determination of this Court. In such circumstances I hold that this Court has the determination to try, entertain and determine the instant writ petition.
The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of a valid permit for a route, some persons have created obstructions in the plying of the vehicle of the petitioner. This grievance has not been redressed. The petitioner is entitled to ply his vehicle in accordance with law and in terms of the permit. The State authorities are obliged to ensure that, the petitioner plies the vehicle in accordance with law. The State authorities would include both the police authorities as well as the permit granting authority. In the present case, it appears that there is an obstruction caused to the plying of the vehicles. The respondent no. 8 denies that there is any obstruction.
In such circumstances it would be appropriate to direct the appropriate authorities viz., the respondent no. 7 and the respondent no. 5 to ensure that, no obstruction is caused to the plying of the vehicle by the petitioner in terms of the conditions of the permit. This order will not prevent the appropriate authorities from taking any action against the petitioner, if it is found to be in violation of the conditions of the permit.
With the above directions and observations W.P.NO. 11116(W) of 2017 is disposed without any order as to costs.
4
Since I have not invited any affidavits the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to be denied by the respondents.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)