Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sc W. P. No. 31611 (W) Of 2013 Ashoke Ghosh vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 3 December, 2013
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1
4 3.12.13
Sc W. P. No. 31611 (W) OF 2013 Ashoke Ghosh
-vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W. P. No. 31616 (W) OF 2013 Arunendu Palit
-vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W. P. No. 32337 (W) OF 2013 Sunil Baul Das
-vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W. P. No. 32338 (W) OF 2013 Dipankar Ghosh
-vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W. P. No. 32339 (W) OF 2013 Sangramjit Ghosh
-vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W. P. No. 32340 (W) OF 2013 Amal Sarkar
-vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W. P. No. 32341 (W) OF 2013 Subhendu Saha
-vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
------------
Mr. Dilip Kumar Samanta ....For the Petitioners in & W.P. 31611(W) of 2013 Mr. Arun Kanti Bera Ms. Gitashreee Mistry.
....For the Petitioners in W.P. 32337-32341 (W) of 2013.
Ms. Sipra Majumder Mr. Swapan Kumar Pal.
....For the Respondents in W.P.31616 (W) of 2013.
Mr. Samit Talukdar Mr. Mirza Firoz Ahmed Begg.
....For the Respondents in W.P. No.32337(W) of 2013.
Mr. Amal Kumar Sen Mr. Aniruddha Sen.
....For the Respondents in W.P. No.32338(W) of 2013.
Mr. Bhakti Prasad Das ....For the Respondents in W.P. No.32339(W) of 2013.
Mr. Jahar Datta ....For the Respondents in W.P. No.31611(W) of 2013.
2Mr. Golam Mohammad ....For the Respondents in W.P. No.32340(W) of 2013.
Mr. Rajendra Chaturvedi ....For the Respondents in W.P. No.32341(W) of 2013.
This batch of writ petitions involves common questions of law and facts and hence are being heard together. They shall stand disposed of by this common order.
Facts giving rise to this batch of writ petitions have been recorded in the order dated 19th November, 2013 and there is no real need to repeat the same. Suffice it to record that on the basis of an erroneous instruction provided to Mr. Sen, learned advocate for the respondents, it has been recorded therein that offer letters had been issued in favour of 7 selectees, although no offer letter has been issued till date in favour of anyone.
The Regional Transport Authority, Hooghly (hereafter the RTA) has no authority in law to hold a lottery for the purpose of selecting candidates for issuance of permits. Such action of the RTA is in the teeth of the decision of this Court reported in 2004(3) CHN 121 (Debashish Chatterjee -vs.- State of West Bengal & Ors.) . The resolution taken by the RTA to issue permits in favour of those who were selected pursuant to the process of lottery, cannot be sustained in law. The same stands set aside.
Although by the order dated 19th November, 2013 I had granted liberty to the petitioners to implead the the selectees upon such particulars being furnished to them by Mr. Sen, I consider it unnecessary to insist on compliance of such order by the petitioners at this stage. Since no offer letter has been issued in favour of anyone, no right has accrued. Selection on the basis of lottery, which is without jurisdiction, cannot also confer any right. This is sufficient reason for not putting the selectees on notice.
I dispose of these writ petitions by directing the respondents to consider and dispose of all the 86 applications 3 that have been received on its merits as early as possible, preferably within three months from date.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously.
Photostat copy of this order, duly counter singed by the Assistant Court Officer, be retained with the records of W.P. No.31611 (W) of 2013, W.P. No.31616 (W) of 2013, W.P. No.32337 (W) of 2013, W.P. No.32338 (W) of 2013, W.P. No.32339 (W) of 2013, W.P. No.32340 (W) of 2013 and W.P. No.32341 (W) of 2013.
(Dipankar Datta,J.)