AVIJIT GHOSH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for quashing of a resolution dtd. 27/6/2018 held at the Board meeting of the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Kolkata. The permit of the petitioner was cancelled by the said decision. The impugned decision was passed by the RTA pursuant to an order of a Coordinate Bench dtd. 15/5/2018 by directing the authorities to dispose of the proceedings after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties. The said order was passed in a writ petition filed by the private respondent no. 5.

(2.) It appears from the submissions made by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner purchased a chassis from the dealer on 25/6/2011 which was thereafter developed into a fully built-up bus. The petitioner registered the vehicle on 10/9/2011 upon placing a fully functional bus. The petitioner submitted fees for obtaining the registration certificate and the permit was granted on 14/9/2011 after completion of all formalities. The private respondent no. 5 filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 4924(W) of 2018 against grant of permit to the petitioner which was disposed of by the order dtd. 15/5/2018. Counsel submits that after passing of the impugned order, an application was made by the petitioner under The Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information as to the status of the petitioner 's vehicle which was presented for registration. The Registering Authority replied to the petitioner 's application by forwarding particulars of the vehicles which were available in their database from which would appear that the fully functional bus was presented by the petitioner to the Registering Authority for registration.

(3.) According to learned counsel appearing for the State, the automobile dealer offered "Tata Diesel Chassis " to the petitioner for a sum of Rs.9,33,945.00 but that the proforma invoice shows that the invoices were issued without any commitment of delivery. Counsel submits that the receipt for payment of the vehicle does not show that any bus chassis was handed over to the petitioner on the basis of such receipt. Counsel places emphasis on the fact that the automobile dealer handed over a chassis worth Rs.10.00 lacs to the petitioner against a down payment of Rs.5,000.00which is also not corroborated from any of the documents produced by the petitioner.