BURDWAN DISTRICT BUS ASSOCIATION Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject-matter of challenge in both these two Rules is the same resolution viz., the one dated July 2, 1969, adopted by the Regional Transport Authority, Burdwan extending the five Stage Carriage permits of the Durgapur State Transport Board to Burdwan Court from Keshabgunj-Chatti. The petitioner in one case is the Burdwan District Bus Association and in the other is Sri Ajitava Chakraborty both of whom raised objections against such extension and whose objections had been overruled. The subject matter of challenge being the same and the challenge being based on common grounds these two cases have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. It would be necessary to refer to the facts which are shortly as follows:

(2.) Durgapur State Transport Service a Government undertaking -- applied for five Stage Carriage permits from Durgapur to Burdwan. These applications were considered and disposed of in the year 1967 by the Regional Transport Authority Burdwan. On June 17, 1967; five Stage Carriage permits were issued in favour of Durgapur State Transport Service in respect of the route "Durgapur to Burdwan, Keshabgunj-Chatti as the terminus with one up and one down trip daily". Objections were raised by the Durgapur State Transport Service to Keshabgunj-Chatti being made the terminus. It is not in dispute that Keshabgunj-Chatti is Within the municipal limits of Burdwan but is two miles short of Burdwan Court, an important Bus terminus for Burdwan. In the objections raised by Durgapur State Transport Service it was pointed out that although the grant prayed for was in respect of the route Durgapur to Burdwan fixing the terminus at Keshabgunj-Chatti would not only put the passengers in difficulties but would render the service uneconomical. It was accordingly prayed that the permit-holder may be allowed to run the buses up to Burdwan Court. On the affidavits filed by the parties it appears clear that the Regional Transport Authority had to fix the terminus at Keshabganj-Chatti in order to avoid an apprehended violation of an existing order of injunction issued by this Court in respect of another route Durgapur to Nabawadip. After lapse of several months when the said interim order was dissolved by this Court on May 20, 1969 the Regional Transport Authority, Burdwan issued a notice inviting objections and representations, if any, made by the Durgapur State Transport Service then reconstituted as Durgapur State Transport Board for permanent extension of their existing route Durgapur to Burdwan, Keshabgunj-Chatti as the terminus up to Burdwan Court. Objections so invited were directed to be filed within June 26, 1969. The petitioner in the first case, the Association filed an objection on June 24, 1969 while the petitioner in the other Ajitava Chakraborty filed his objection on June 26, 1969. Both the objectors raised common grounds of objection. It was claimed on their behalf that Durgapur State Transport Board's application for extension of the route should have been considered as an application for the grant of a new permit under Section 57 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act and as such the Regional Transport Authority without following the provisions of Sections 47 (3) and 57 (2) and (3) and Rule 55-A of the Rules framed under the Act cannot deal with and dispose of the same in the manner proposed by it. The objectors were heard on their objections and the Regional Transport Authority by the impugned resolution dated July 2, 1969 overruled the objections and granted the prayer for extension. The relevant extract of the resolution incorporating the reasons is set out as follows:

(3.) In support of these two Rules Mr. Roy has raised the same objections which the objectors had raised before the Regional Transport Authority. According to Mr. Roy on the application of the permit-holder as also notice inviting objections it is explicitly clear that the permit-holder prayed for alteration of a condition in the permit with reference to the area or the route specified within the meaning of Section 48 (3) (i). That being so, Section 57 (8) immediately comes into operation and the Regional Transport Authority could not have disposed of the application except as an application for the grant of a new permit. But the application had not been disposed of as such and on the other hand has been disposed of as if under Section 48 (3) (xxi). This according to Mr. Roy is not only illegal but also beyond the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority. Mr. Roy submits that the proper course which should have been adopted by the Regional Transport Authority was first to consider whether the number of Stage Carriage permits on the route Durgapur to Burdwan should or should not be increased under Section 47 (3). If it decided to increase then it should have followed the provisions of Section 57 (2) and (3) giving an opportunity to other applicants for applying for Stage Carriage permits on the extended route. This procedure not having been followed the grant is not in accordance with law. Strong reliance is placed on a Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar Sadhu v. R. T. A., Burdwan. In my opinion the decision relied on by Mr. Roy fully supports the contention raised by him. The Regional Transport Authority in his resolution also appears to be conscious of this position but according to it the grant as made is not one which comes within Section 57 (8) of the Act.