SAROJ KANTI BASU Vs. R T A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the resolution dated 30th July, 1969 and the notification dated 20th August, 1969, issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Howrah. The facts which have given rise to the present controversies are shortly as follows:

(2.) The petitioner is the owner of Bus No. WBU-248 and plies his bus on route No. 54 on the basis of a permanent stage carriage permit. Route No. 54 extends from Howrah to Bally Khal. There are two other routes, namely, route No. 51 and route No. 56 which extend between Howrah Station and Dunlop Bridge. By a notification D/- 30th July, 1969, the Regional Transport Authority announced that it was decided at a meeting dated 30th July, 1969 that the three routes, namely, Route No. 51, Route No. 54 and Route No. 56 would be amalgamated. The Regional Transport Authority appointed a Sub-committee at its mating held on 12th May, 1969, to examine the problems of Routes Nos. 51, 54 and 56 in all their aspects. The Sub-committee agreed with the Secretary Regional Transport Authority and opined that to bring about an improvement in the management of transport services on the routes avoiding unhealthy competition and accidents on the routes, all the three routes should operate as a combined route and for that purpose amalgamation of the said three routes was a necessity, particularly in the interest of the travelling public. After hearing the Sub-committee, Regional Transport Authority resolved that the said three routes be amalgamated with immediate effect fop which steps under the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) should be taken without delay.

(3.) The petitioner's grievance is that neither he nor any of the permit holders of Route No. 54 has any knowledge of the said amalgamation and none of them was given any opportunity to make his representation against such amalgamation under Section 57 (3) of the said Act. The petitioner further contends that the variation of the routes by amalgamation amounts to variation of the conditions of the permit by the inclusion of a new route or new area, and as such variation should be treated as the grant of a new permit under Section 57 (8) of the said Act, the procedures laid down in Section 47 (1) of the said Act should have been complied with.