PRASANT KUMAR DUTTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus upon the respondents to issue Stage Carriage Permit for the vehicle No. BEK 4695 in terms of the offer letter which respondent No. 3 being the Regional Transport Authority of Uttar Dinajpur District had earlier issued in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) The case in brief is that on the prayer of the petitioner, Secretary of respondent No. 3 being R.T.A. Uttar Dinajpur by his letter dated 30.6.99 informed the petitioner that the board of the said Authority in its meeting held on 28.3. 1999 took a decision to allow the prayer of the petitioner for granting him permit under agenda No. 11(k) and accordingly, petitioner was directed to place a vehicle having a sitting capacity of 46+1 and wheel base 205. Petitioner was further directed to place the said vehicle within six months from the date on which the aforesaid letter was issued. Later on in response to the said offer letter, petitioner purchased the vehicle bearing No. BEK 4695 and accordingly after complying with all requirements of law petitioner placed the said vehicle before the Authorities within the extended period of the validity of the said offer letter. However, for a long time as the respondents did not respond on the prayer of the petitioner to issue permit in favour of the petitioner, he had to approach this Court in another writ petition being AST No. 4695 of 2000 for appropriate direction upon the respondents. This Court by an order dated 26.12.2000 disposed of the said writ petition. Said order reads as under:-

(3.) However, after the said order was passed by this Court, the Secretary of the said Authority informed the petitioner that no permit could be issued in respect of the vehicle of the petitioner on various grounds as mentioned therein. In the said letter it was, inter alia, pointed out that the vehicle for which petitioner had asked for stage carriage permit is more than 12 years old from the date of initial registration of the said vehicle and the said authority by a resolution adopted a policy decision that the vehicles which are more than 3 years old from the date of initial registration would not be considered for giving permit view of safety requirements of the travelling passengers and also for controlling pollution in the District. It was further pointed out that the vehicle which was placed for permit had a capacity of 53 seats, wereas in the offer letter dated 30.6.1999 petitioner was required to place a vehicle with sitting capacity for 46+1. It was also pointed out that the vehicle in question is in the name of two persons i.e. petitioner himself and one Parimal Das. But, the application for permit was made by petitioner alone and other owner of the vehicle never applied for any such permit. On these grounds the prayer of the petitioner could not be conceded to and hence he was directed to rectify all these anomalies as pointed out above. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Regional Transport Authority, petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.