Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Himadri Mukherjee vs Bimal Chandra Ghosh & Ors on 10 December, 2010
Author: Bhaskar Bhattacharya
Bench: Bhaskar Bhattacharya
1
Form No. J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Appellate/Revisional/Civil Jurisdiction
Present:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya
And
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sambuddha Chakrabarti
AST 617 of 2010
With
ASTA 238 of 2010
Himadri Mukherjee
Versus
Bimal Chandra Ghosh & Ors.
For the Appellant: Mr. Pantu Deb Roy
Mr. Upendra Roy.
For the Respondent: Mr. Malay Kumar Basu
Mr. Swapan Kar.
For the State: Mr. N.I. Khan.
Heard on: 29.11.2010.
Judgment on: 10th December, 2010.
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.:
This Mandamus-Appeal is at the instance of the respondent No.7 in a writ-application and is directed against an order dated September 8, 2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship allowed a writ-application by setting aside the resolution dated January 14, 2010 adopted 2 in the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, Nadia, and the action taken on the basis of such resolution.
Being dissatisfied, the respondent No.7 has come up with the present appeal.
The following facts are not in dispute:
a) The writ-petitioner is running a Motor training school, namely, Nadia Motor Training School, at Krishnagar, for imparting instructions in driving of motor vehicles by following the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the Licensing Authority issued a licence in favour of the writ-petitioner for running of the said Motor Training School.
b) On 11th April, 2008, the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal, issued a notification regarding driving licence for heavy motor vehicles category to avoid fatal road accident and following the said notification, the Regional Transport Officer, Nadia, issued a letter to all the owners of the existing Motor Training Schools on 6th June, 2008.
c) Pursuant to the said letter, issued by the Regional Transport Officer, a meeting was held among all the owners of the Motor Training Schools in the district of Nadia and in that meeting, 3 only the writ-petitioner was ready and willing to place a heavy vehicle having dual control facility for running the Motor Training School in terms of the notification dated 11th April, 2008. Subsequently, the Regional Transport Officer, Nadia, held a General Meeting with all the Motor Training Schools of the District on 4th July, 2008 after service of due notice and in the said meeting, in the presence of all the owners of the Motor Training Schools of Nadia district, it was decided unanimously that the writ-petitioner would be the sole Motor Training School in the District to give the training of heavy motor vehicles licence and for that reason, a specially constructed dual control system heavy motor vehicle will be purchased by the writ-
petitioner.
d) It may not be out of place to mention here that in the earlier letter dated June 6, 2010 issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Nadia, to the writ-petitioner it was specifically stated that "no other school will be allowed for coming three years to provide such vehicle and the willing school will have to undertake responsibility of providing such vehicle for continuous three years."
e) Pursuant to such resolution, the writ-petitioner placed a specially constructed dual control system heavy vehicle for the 4 said Motor Training School for imparting training for driving licence of heavy motor vehicle and incurred huge expenses for purchasing such a vehicle and engaging experienced drivers in that behalf.
f) It appears that subsequently the Regional Transport Authority, Nadia, on January 14, 2010 took a fresh resolution thereby indicating that two other motor training schools have intimated their willingness to place the vehicle having dual control system for imparting training for the grant of heavy vehicle driving licence. It was resolved in that meeting that a fresh notice should be issued to all the recognised motor training schools in the district inviting their willingness to provide such vehicles and all such applicants should be allowed to place such vehicles.
g) Subsequently, by order dated February 5, 2010 the Regional Transport Officer, Nadia permitted the appellant before us to place his vehicle having dual control system for the above purpose.
As indicated earlier, the learned Single Judge, by the order impugned in this appeal, has set aside the decision of the Regional Transport Officer to allow other Motor Training Schools to place the similar type of vehicle for the purpose 5 of giving training to the applicants for heavy driving licence on the ground of promissory estoppel.
Mr. Deb Roy, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, strenuously contended before us that the writ-petitioner cannot have the sole right to impart training for heavy driving licence and by the order impugned in the writ-application, the right of the writ-petitioner to impart training with the aid of his heavy vehicle with dual control system has not been taken away. Thus, Mr. Deb Roy continues, the writ-application filed by the writ-petitioner should have been dismissed.
Mr. Khan, the learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Regional Transport Authority, although has not challenged the order impugned by filing a separate appeal, has supported the appellant and has contended that in view of various allegations against the writ-petitioner in the matter of imparting training to the applicants as the sole training school, the Authority decided to give permission to the other schools in the district.
Mr. Basu, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ- petitioner/ Respondent, on the other hand, has supported the order impugned and has contended that before the expiry of three years, the state-respondent could not allow any other school to give such training in view of the agreement arrived at in the earlier meeting where the appellant and all other training schools of the district agreed to the appointment of the writ-petitioner as the only Motor Training School of the district of Nadia for heavy vehicle driving licence for 6 a period of three years. According to Mr. Basu, if his client knew that other schools would be given permission to place similar vehicles, his client would not have agreed to spend so much money for placing the vehicle in question and making arrangement of appointment of sufficient number of staff for maintaining the arrangement for three years. Mr. Basu, therefore, prays for dismissal of this appeal.
Therefore, the only question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the decision of the Transport authority to allow other schools to impart the training of the same nature.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record we find that in the resolution dated January 14, 2010 no reason has been assigned for deviating from the offer given by the Regional Transport Authority in the past to the writ-petitioner. Only because some other schools were willing to take the selfsame duty, such fact cannot be a ground for giving a go-bye to the promise given to the writ-petitioner that he would be the sole training school for conducting such training provided he continued with the arrangement for the next three years.
Although in the affidavit used before us by the State it is alleged that it received various complaints against the writ-petitioner about its conduct in the running of the training school causing harassment to the applicants for heavy 7 driving licence, it appears that no such allegation was conveyed to the writ- petitioner in writing nor was any explanation called for in that behalf. Moreover, there is no specific instance of malpractice in running the school by naming any particular applicant who have been allegedly harassed at the instance of the writ- petitioner as would appear from those vague allegations.
We are prepared to accept the contention of Mr. Khan, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State, that his client has every right to terminate the agreement arrived at earlier in case of any illegal act on the part of the writ-petitioner in running its school. But in this case, no such allegation was made against the writ-petitioner calling for explanation and at the same time, the licence granted to the writ-petitioner has not been terminated on the ground of malpractice. Only a decision has been taken to give permission to the other schools to have the facility of imparting training for the grant of heavy vehicle driving licence as they expressed their willingness in that behalf.
We are quite conscious that if the number of applicant for heavy vehicle driving licence increases to a considerable extent and it becomes impossible for the writ-petitioner to cope with such situation, the Regional Transport Authority has the right to caution the writ-petitioner and even terminate the licence alleging mismanagement or causing harassment to the applicants, but before such allegations are proved, it could not allow other Motor Training Schools simply because they were willing to place the vehicle having dual control system for imparting training when there was in the past specific agreement in the 8 presence of all the motor training schools of the District that the writ-petitioner would be the sole authority for imparting such training for the next three years because no other school at that time was willing to take the burden and it was the writ-petitioner alone who agreed to take such responsibility on the assurance that his School will be sole Motor Training School in the district for the next three years for the above purpose .
We, therefore, find that the learned Single Judge in the facts of the present case rightly set aside the decision of the Transport Authority to appoint other schools for the above purpose.
We, however, make it clear that this order will not prevent the Transport authority from taking appropriate step against the writ-petitioner if it is established that the activity of the writ-petitioner is not in conformity with the law and in that event, after giving the writ-petitioner an opportunity to defend the allegation, if any, appropriate steps should be taken.
The appeal is thus disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Interim order granted earlier stands vacated.
In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs.
(Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.) I agree.
9(Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.)