RINA MAITY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the aforesaid batch of writ petitions were heard analogously as the question of fact and law in all the cases are almost identical and similar. All the writ petitioners being the unsuccessful candidates in the matter of obtaining Stage-Carriage Permit for operating passenger vehicles on the route from Calcutta to Siliguri have challenged the decision of the State Transport Authority (STA). A number of persons who have been added or allowed to intervene in these writ applications were granted stage-carriage permits by and under a resolution dated 26th November 2001 by the State Transport Authority (hereinafter in short STA). The decisions taken by the STA purported to be in compliance with a judgment and order of Justice Ronojit Kumar Mitra (as His Lordship then was) passed on 14th September 2001, in a number of writ petitions, wherein the previous decision of the STA was also challenged. Previously as it has been observed by Justice Mitra, principle of natural justice was not followed and no decision was rendered under the provision of the statute as such the decision was set aside and STA concerned was directed to take a decision afresh in accordance with the law. A number of Learned Lawyers in each and every writ petitions argued separately, assailing the decision of the STA. Their argument in substance is as follows :No reason has been communicated nor any opportunity of being heard was given by the STA in considering the applications of the respective unsuccessful petitioners. So the entire selection process made by the STA for grant of permit for the route from Kolkata to Siliguri is wholly bad in law and void ab initio, as Section 80(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) clearly envisages that the Authority concerned while rejecting the prayer for grant of permit has to give reasons or to give opportunity of being heard. It is contended that upon bare perusal of the broad sheet prepared by STA it would reveal that out of 17 candidates, 8 candidates had not submitted any evidence in relation to payment of current Income Tax and Professional Tax receipts although in the advertisement inviting applications it clearly stipulated that all the applications must be accompanied by current Professional Tax and Income Tax certificates. Therefore, applications of the ineligible candidates have been taken into consideration; consequently concerned respondents selected those candidates leaving out eligible candidates being petitioners who though fulfilled all the criteria as mentioned in the advertisement. It is submitted by all the Learned Lawyers in support of the petitions, in chorus, that the STA has manifestly misinterpreted the law relating to preference to be given to certain categories, when other conditions being equal. Such conclusion being an error of law can be corrected by a writ of certiorari as this Honble Court is well within jurisdiction to set aside the impugned selection process. Reliance has been placed in this question on the two decisions reported in AIR 1964 SC 477 (paragraphs 7 and 8), AIR 1986 SC 200.

(2.) It is further contended by the learned Lawyers that the conclusion as reached by the STA are patently Irrational and unreasonable. On the basis of the fact and materials produced before the STA no person of reasonable prudence, acting in similar circumstances, should have reached the conclusion, which the STA has arrived at. The STA in the instant case has not only acted in disregard to the advertisement issued by It, inviting specific application but has also defied the statutory provisions with impunity.

(3.) It is further contended by the Learned Counsels of the petitioners that the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder do not provide, how selection is to be made in case of situation where the STA has to choose amongst several applications, who have fulfilled all the statutory considerations and who are otherwise equally placed. In such a situation it is obvious that the STA must lay down norms or rules and publish by advertisement. The relative merit of all the suitable candidates must be judged and in doing so must base its decision on factors, which are rationally related to the objects of the Act and without any oblique motive or extraneous consideration. In this connection reliance has been placed on 1997 (1) CHN 378.