SATYEN SHARAT Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are bus operators on various routes between Purnea and Kishengunge. The said routes pass both within the jurisdiction of the States of Bihar and West Bengal. The present challenge has been preferred against a draft Notification dated May 16, 2014 and a final Reciprocal Transport Agreement dated February 22, 2016, both published in the Kolkata Gazette by the Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Government of West Bengal.

(2.) The petitioners' primary contention is that the said draft agreement, which ripened into the final Reciprocal Transport Agreement, are violative of the provisions of Sec. 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, "the 1988 Act"). In respect of the locus standi of the petitioners to file the writ petition, the petitioners place reliance on a Special Bench judgment of this Court in Prabhat Pan and others Vs. The State of West Bengal and others, reported at AIR 2015 Cal 112, wherein it was held that the existing operator has a right to raise objection against the illegal, arbitrary grant of permit by the Transport Authority, more so, in respect of grants of permit which are affected by colourable exercise of power or otherwise violative of Article 14, of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further cites a Constitutional Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Tilokchand and Motichand and others Vs. H.B. Munshi and another, reported at (1969) 1 SCC 110, which was rendered in the context of Article 32 of the Constitution, for the proposition that if the fundamental right of the petitioner, as guaranteed in the Constitution of India, is violated by not rendering equal protection of law, a writ petition is maintainable. It is argued that the same principle applies to Article 226 of the Constitution as well, in respect of the High Courts.