Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Samaresh Das vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 30 June, 2016
Author: Samapti Chatterjee
Bench: Samapti Chatterjee
1
30.6.2016
23
W.P. 10535(W) of 2016
Samaresh Das
-vs-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. N. I. Khan,
Mr. Mukunda Lal Sarkar
... for the Petitioner
Mr. Amal Kr. Sen,
Ms. Ashima Das (Sil)
... for the State
Affidavit of service and supplementary affidavit filed by the learned Advocate for the
petitioner in Court today be kept on record.
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a direction upon the respondent
authority to furnish the resolution of the Board meeting held on 20th February, 2013.
Mr. N. I. Khan, learned Advocate appearing fror the petitioner, submits that the petitioner made an application for contract carriage permit for auto rickshaw for the route Garapota Bazar to Benali via Begula. Mr. Khan also submits that pursuant to the authority's direction the petitioner appeared before the Board on 22nd February, 2013 but till date no decision has been communicated to the petitioner regarding the hearing dated 20th February, 2013.
Hence the present writ petition.
Pursuant to the earlier order dated 22nd June, 2016, Mr. Khan filed the supplementary affidavit thereby furnishing the decision of the R.T.A. Nadia Board meeting dated 20th February, 2013 under Serial No. 533, the petitioner's application has been cancelled.
After going through the impugned decision adopted by the R.T.A., Nadia on 20th February, 2013 thereby rejecting the petitioner's application for contract carriage permit regarding auto rickshaw for the route Garapota Bazar to Benali via Bagula for the following reasons.
"Heard the applicant. After taken into consideration the road condition, congestion of road traffic and safety and security of the passengers travelling in such 3-wheeled Auto-Rickshaw within the ambit and scope of the Motor 2 Vehicles Act and Rules framed thereunder, his application is not granted (See notification no. 268-WT/3M-01/2010 Pt. dated 29.01.2010)."
In my considered view, the decision of rejection adopted by the R.T.A. Nadia on 20th February, 2013 is a cryptic one. No reason has been assigned in the said resolution, only the notification dated 29th January, 2010 has been mentioned in the said resolution.
Therefore, in my considered view, the said decision against the petitioner in the resolution adopted by the R.T.A. Nadia on 20th February, 2013 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the resolution adopted by the R.T.A. Nadia on 20th February, 2013 is hereby quashed and set aside.
I direct the respondent no. 2, the Regional Transport Authority, Nadia, to take a fresh decision in respect of the petitioner's application for contract carriage permit for auto rickshaw on the route in question within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorised representative and communicate the decision to the petition within two weeks thereafter.
Needless to mention that at the time of taking decision the respondent no. 2 will consider the specific Clauses of the notification dated 29th January, 2010.
With this direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
However, there will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.
( Samapti Chatterjee, J. ) AKD