Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Santosh Kumar Ghosh vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 25 April, 2013
Author: Aniruddha Bose
Bench: Aniruddha Bose
1
21 25.04.13 W.P. 11802 (W)_of 2013.
ab
Santosh Kumar Ghosh
Vs
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. N. I. Khan
Mr. Saikat Banerjee
Mr. Ardhendu Sekhar Biswas
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Pantu Deb Roy
Mr. Subrata Guha Biswas
... For the State Respondents.
The writ petitioner was granted a stage carriage permit by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) Dakshin Dinajpur in the year 2007. A copy of this permit has been made annexure "P1" to the writ petition. Subsequently the permit had been being renewed from time to time. The route in question covers three districts at present, being Uttar Dinajpur, Dakshin Dinajpur and Malda.
Subsequent to grant of permit, the same was being countersigned by the reciprocating RTAs. Thereafter, dispute arose at the time of obtaining the timetable and in course of such dispute, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Dakshin Dinajpur appears to have discovered that the initial grant of permit was illegal, as the same was not issued on concurrence of the RTAs of the regions covering the route of the petitioner.
Appearing for the petitioner Mr. Khan, learned Counsel assails the decision of the Secretary, who has directed the petitioner surrender the permit. A copy of this decision has been made annexure "P8" to the writ petition. The ground on which the 2 impugned order is assailed is that direction to surrender permit, which in substance constitutes revocation or cancellation of the permit, ought to have been taken by the Regional Transport Authority Board and not by the Secretary.
Mr. Deb Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand submits that the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority had taken the decision in pursuance of direction of this Court in W.P. No. 18881 (W) of 2011 issued on 30th November, 2011. In that proceeding the question of non-approval of timetable was in question and direction was issued in the following terms:-
"I direct the Secretary of the respondent no. 2 to take a decision in the above matter in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order after giving him opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other interested persons, if any and communicate the such decision to the petitioner within a week thereof".
Mr. Khan submits that the Secretary was directed to examine the question of grant of timetable only, and under the statute, the power to revoke a permit vests with the RTA.
Under normal circumstances, I would have remanded the matter to the RTA Board for taking a decision in the matter afresh.
But in this case, it appears to me that there was initial defect in grant of permit itself. Mr. Khan submitted that there was subsequent countersignature by the reciprocating RTAs and such countersignature constituted ratification of grant of permit the said 3 RTAs.
In my opinion that fact by itself would not validate the permit. But considering the fact that there is no restriction on the number of permits which can be granted for the route in question, I give liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh for a permanent permit in the same route, having the identical route alignment, with the same vehicle he is plying on the route in question. Simultaneously with making application for permanent permit, the petitioner shall also make application for temporary permit for the same route against the same vehicle and on his application, temporary permit shall be granted forthwith. On the question of grant of permit on permanent basis, the concerned RTAs shall take a decision within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner shall be given hearing before the matter is finally decided. So far as the subsisting permit is concerned the same shall be examined by the RTA Board in their next meeting and if it is found that the reciprocating authorities did not follow the procedure in grant of permit the same shall stand surrendered but the petitioner shall be entitled to ply the said vehicle in the same route on the basis of temporary basis with valid timetable till permit on permanent basis is issued. In the event however the RTA Board finds his original permit to be valid, then the exercise of applying for and grant of fresh permit shall stand revoked, as in such a situation it would become a redundant exercise.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Since this writ petition is being disposed of without calling for any affidavit, allegations made in the writ petition shall be deemed to 4 have not been admitted.
There shall, however be, no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the learned Counsel for the parties as expeditiously as possible, in compliance of usual formalities.
As a Special Case, let urgent photostat plain copy of the order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Counsel for the parties on usual undertaking.
(Aniruddha Bose, J.)