Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

46. The writ petitions [W.P.8537 (W) of 2012, W.P.17749 (W) of 2012, W.P.17751 (W) of 2012, W.P.17753 (W) of 2012, W.P.17755 (W) of 2012, W.P.17757 (W) of 2012, W.P.17784 (W) of 2012, W.P.21111 (W) of 2012, W.P.21115 (W) of 2012, W.P.21117 (W) of 2012 and W.P.21120 (W) of 2012], accordingly, stand disposed of.
47. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Roy, had applied for an auto rickshaw permit on an intra-regional route (Rajmahal to S.D. Hospital) before the Regional Transport Authority, Burdwan (hereafter the RTA, Burdwan). The application was rejected on June 17, 2012 by adopting the following resolution:

49. The writ petition [W.P. 19227(W) of 2012] stands disposed of with a direction upon the R.T.A., Burdwan to reconsider the petitioner's application in accordance with law without any delay but positively within June 30, 2014. If the petitioner's application is rejected once again, the order must have the support of reasons. On the contrary, if the petitioner's application is granted, follow up steps shall be taken without any delay in accordance with law.

50. Insofar as the petitioners represented by Mr. Sarkar are concerned, they had all applied for intra-regional permits for operating auto rickshaws before the RTA, Nadia. All such applications have been rejected on diverse dates, but with identical resolutions. The identical resolution of the RTA, Nadia adopted while rejecting the applications reads as follows:-

"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 Vehicles Act and rules framed thereunder, his application is not granted. (See notification no. 268-WT/3M-01/2010 Pt. dated 29.01.2010)."

51. I have no doubt in my mind that rejection of the petitioners' applications for permits by the RTA, Nadia is arbitrary and that the impugned resolutions are indefensible. Guideline (6) does not restrict grant of permit to operate an auto- rickshaw. What it says is that while granting an auto-rickshaw permit, the permit issuing authority is to consider the road condition, congestion of road traffic, and safety and security of the passengers within the ambit and scope of the MV Act and the rules framed thereunder. There is no discussion in the impugned resolutions with regard to the factors mentioned in guideline (6). While dealing with the applications for permits of each of the petitioners, it was imperative for the RTA, Nadia to indicate with some degree of clarity the impediments standing in the way of grant of permits. The RTA, Nadia could not have simply referred to the factors mentioned in guideline (6) and without anything more, reject an application for permit. Application of mind was necessary, which is conspicuously absent. The impugned resolutions of the RTA, Nadia, thus stand set aside.

53. Mr. Mukherjee appeared for the petitioners in W.P 7283(W) of 2012, W.P. 8814 (W) of 2012, W.P. 9236(W) of 2012 and W.P. 17633(W) of 2012, which are at the instance of 22 (twenty-two), 38 (thirty-eight), 61 (sixty-one) and 5 (five) petitioners respectively. It appears from the respective writ petitions that all the individual applications of the petitioners for grant of auto rickshaw permits on intra-regional routes in the district of Jalpaiguri have been rejected by the Regional Transport Authority, Jalpaiguri (hereafter the RTA, Jalpaiguri) by referring to the guidelines contained in the notification dated January 29, 2010. In case of some of the petitioners, guidelines (3), (4) and (5) have been invoked whereas in case of some others guideline (6) was considered as a bar for grant of permits. The challenge to the notification dated January 29, 2010 by more than one petitioner in a joint writ petition could be entertained and I have decided the point of legality and/or validity of the same. However, the petitioners are not entitled to move a joint writ petition and question the separate resolutions that were adopted by the RTA, Jalpaiguri while rejecting their respective applications for permits without paying individual court fees. Each of the petitioners has identical but independent cause of action. Their joint writ petition for setting aside the impugned resolutions could have been entertained, if they had paid separate court fees. That is also not the case here. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mota Singh v. State of Haryana : AIR 1981 SC 484, I hold the joint writ petitions, insofar as they seek to challenge the impugned resolutions rejecting the applications for permits, as not maintainable without payment of individual court fees for each of the several petitioners.