JYOTI KUMAR GANGULY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, prayer was made for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to "revoke the licence being No. MS-20 dated 02.01.2001 and give effect of the letter dated 14.6.2001". The petitioner alleged that on July 2, 1997 the petitioner had made an application before the Motor Vehicle Department for being allowed to operate a Motor Training School in Dasnagar area or Andul area. The application, it would appear, had been rejected by the authorities in writing dated July 22, 1997. The petitioner was aggrieved and challenged the refusal in a writ application. The Court by an order dated September 29, 1997 gave directions for affidavits, and made an interim order of status quo with regard to "running a Motor Training School in the Howrah area". The writ petition, admittedly was pending final disposal. According to the petitioner, in violation of the Court's order dated September 29, 1997 the Licensing Authority, Motor Vehicles Department, Howrah had issued a licence bearing No. MS-20 dated January 2, 2001 to one "Maa Manasha Mongal Motor Training School, a proprietorship firm represented by one Anup Kumar Bag, which shall be referred by me in this order as "the licence-holder". According to the petitioner, before the Licencing Authority could formally revoke the licence, the licence-holder had filed a writ petition before this Court, which shall be referred by me in this order as the licence-holder's petition. This Court admittedly had disposed of the licence-holder's petition by an order dated July 13, 2001. In the order, the Court had directed that the letter dated June, 14, 2001 revoking the valid licence of the licence-holder shall be of no effect, and the licence holder had been granted liberty to run the Motor Training School on the basis of the valid licence.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the revocation of the licence, by the authorities, was "in consonance with the order of status quo???? and therefore could not have been interfered with before the final disposal of the said writ petition." It had also been alleged in the petition, that this Court "did not take into consideration the order of status quo dated 29.9.97 passed in W.P. No. 21501(W) of 1997." It was argued by advocate appearing for the petitioner, that at the time of making the order dated July 13, 2001, advocate appearing for the respondent authorities did not place before this Court, either the letter dated April 9, 2001 written by advocate for the petitioner, or the order of the Court dated September 29, 1997.

(3.) It was submitted by advocate appearing for the respondent authorities, as also advocate for the licence-holder, that at the time of making the order dated July 13, 2001, the order dated September 29, 1997 had been placed before the Court, and a xerox of the order was kept with the records of the petition of the licence holder, in Court.