PRAN RANJAN MAITY Vs. ANIL KUMAR PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The first respondent, Anil Kumar Panda obtained a stage carriage permit in a joint endeavour made by the Regional Transport Authorities of Howrah and Midnapore wherein was incorporated a direction as to the night halt. Since this fetter was not acceptable to the first respondent, he moved the High Court of Calcutta in writ proceedings. A learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed his writ petition relegating him to his ordinary remedies under the law and undeniably, one such remedy was to file an appeal against the said order of the Regional Transport Authorities before the Appellate Tribunal established under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989. Instead of availing the same, the first respondent took the matter in Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench in a manner directed the Regional Transport Authorities of Howrah and Midnapore to hold a joint conference and deliberate over the matter so as to render decision on various aspects of the matter such as the rotational night haltage, fixation of time-table, the rhythm of trips, the turn of the respective transporters etc. etc. The instant matter has been brought to this Court by an aggrieved party challenging the said order of the Division Bench of the High Court.

(3.) This Court issued notice and ordered status quo to be maintained. Later it transpired that the aforementioned two authorities had finally met to deliberate on the question referred to them by the High Court and were about to decide the same on 15-9-1996, but refrained themselves from doing so because of the status quo order. That order was clarified by us on February 3, 1997 giving liberty to the said authorities to pronounce on the matter. Further it was required that a copy of the final order of those authorities be placed on record of this Court, which has accordingly been done. The deliberations of these two authorities has left the appellant aggrieved.