DEBASHIS GANGULY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The scheme of the 1988 Act, as appears to me, authorises the Transport Authority to formulate a route from one termini to another provided one of the terminis falls within its jurisdiction. Once such route is formulated, such Transport Authority can grant permit to ply stage carriage on the said formulated route. If, however, the route in question falls in the jurisdiction of the another authority, counter-signature of such another Authority is required. In order to obtain such counter-signature, steps as are required to be taken for obtaining a route permit are also required to be taken. In the event, no such counter-signature is obtained, the route permit would not be valid within the territorial jurisdiction of the Transport Authority whose counter-signature was required but has not been obtained. The same principle is also applicable in relation to inter-State routes. If a State has formulated the route from one stage to another, that State may grant a route permit on the said route but that route permit will not be valid in the said State if the other State does not grant counter-signature on the route permit. In order to obtain such counter-signature from the other State, steps as are required to be taken for obtaining the permit are also required to be taken. The Act provides that in the event if there be bilateral agreements between the States, it would not be necessary for the permit-holder to take steps for obtaining grant of permit while approaching to obtain the counter-signature. A democratic State enters into an agreement with another democratic State keeping in mind the public need. In the instant case, keeping in mind such public need, the State of West Bengal and the State of Bihar has formulated a route and has entered into an agreement. It has specified that in the said route one permit shall be issued by the State of Bihar and the other by the State of West Bengal. In addition to the number mentioned above, other permits may be granted, provided steps are taken to obtain the same by following the usual procedure. But in so far as these two permits are concerned, to obtain the permit, steps are to be taken as are required but to obtain the counter-signature, steps are not to be taken as are required to obtain a permit. In other words, for these two permits, by reason of the reciprocal arrangement, counter-signature would be granted as a matter of course by the other State, if one State grants a permit.

(2.) Having regard to the nature of the public demand, not only the route was formulated but the number of stage carriages to be plied was also ascertained. In order to fulfil such demand, though the agreement is dated 27-5-88, advertisement inviting applications for obtaining such permit was issued on 11-6-91 by the State Transport Authority, West Bengal. Very many persons including the petitioner and the South Bengal State Transport Corporation applied to obtain such permit to the State Transport Authority, West Bengal. The permit was granted in favour of the South Bengal State Transport Corporation. Such grant having been challenged successfully by the petitioner in a writ petition filed in this Court, the same was cancelled and the matter was directed to be decided once again afresh. On the basis thereof, on 16-6-93 a decision was taken by the State Transport Authority, West Bengal to grant such permit once again to South Bengal State Transport Corporation. In terms thereof, in 1993 itself, South Bengal State Transport Corporation was granted the Permit No.P.St. P-5/93 (I/S) to ply a bus on the route in question, i.e. from Asansol to Dumka. On an allegation that despite such grant, the South Bengal State Transport Corporation has not plied any bus ever on the route in question and, therefore, has expressed an intent not to ply any bus on the said route and, therefore, the grant of the one and the only permit in favour of the South Bengal State Transport Corporation has become redundant, the present writ petition was filed.

(3.) . When the matter was taken up for hearing, it was submitted that even during the pendency of the writ petition, no step was taken by the South Bengal State Transport Corporation to ply any bus or stagecarriages on the route in question despite having had obtained the said permit. Accordingly, I asked the learned counsel appearing for the South Bengal State Transport Corporation to intimate me as to when South Bengal State Transport Corporation would deploy its vehicle on the route-Asansol to Dumka in terms of the permit granted in its favour. The learned counsel has produced copy of a letter dated 24-8-99 written by South Bengal State Transport Corporation to the Sectretary, State Transport Authority, West Bengal and a letter dated 15-12-99 written by the South Bengal State Transport Corporation to its Advocate-on-Record in the instant case. The learned counsel for the South Bengal State Transport Corporation has also submitted before me that as yet no bus or stage carriage or any other vehicle had been deployed even for one single day by the South Bengal State Transport Corporation on the route in question. In the first letter referred to above, it appeared that the validity of the initial permit expired. South Bengal State Transport Corporation then applied for obtaining renewal of the permit, which was readily granted by the State Transport Authority, W.B.. It then approached the State Transport Authority, Bihar to obtain counter-signature on the renewal. The State Transport Authority, Bihar agreed to grant counter-signature upon payment of arrear tax from the date of issue of the original permit, i.e. with effect from 1-8-93. In the said letter, it has further been written that State Transport Authority, Bihar will not insist for such tax if a new permit is issued. In the premises, by that letter, a request had been made to the State Transport Authority, West Bengal to take up the matter with the State Transport Authority, Bihar so that South Bengal State Transport Corporation is not required to pay the tax as is payable in respect of the permit in question. The second letter contains informations pertaining to the matters dealt in the first letter.