HARENDRA KUMAR BISWAS Vs. R.T.A., NADIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Shri Harendra Kumar Biswas is the registered owner of vehicle No. WB 51-0546 and is a holder of permanent stage carriage permit for the route krishnanagar - Tarapith via Berhampur and Rampurhat. He has been plying the bus on that route on the basis of fixed time-table approved by Regional Transport Authority, Nadia since 1989. The following is that fixed time-table on which the petitioner has plying his bus on that route - <FRM>JUDGEMENT_47_LAWS(CAL)8_1993.html</FRM> It appears that the respondent No. 5, Shri Utpal Biswas is the owner of another vehicle and he has been plying his bus with route permit for that route on another fixed time-table meant for his bus. The departure time for his bus is 6-45, Krishnanagar and arrival 11-50, Tarapith. For return trip of his bus, the departure time is 12-55, Tarapith and arrival 17-55, Krishnanagar. The fixed time-tables were however changed by the R.T.A., Nadia in 1992 and converted into a rotational time-table with same timings requiring the petitioner an the respondent No. 5 to ply their buses on that route alternately on the timings of the rotational time-table, so that the one who will ply his bus as the first trip of the time-table on any day will ply his bus on the next day as second trip of that time-table-and the ether who plied his bus as second trip on the preceding day would ply his bus as the first trip on the following day and so on. The petitioner objected to the introduction of such rotational time table in place of his fixed time-table and he moved this court by a writ petition which was disposed of in appeal by a Division Bench of this court in F.M.A.T. No. 421 of 1993 by order dated 10.3.93. By that order the Regional Transport Authority was directed to take a derision in the matter in accordance with law. It was however made clear by the learned Judges of the Division Bench that they had not expressed any view on the rival contentions of the parties on merits and ail questions taken in the writ application and the appeal were left open to be decided by the Regional Transport Authority in accordance with law. Pursuant to that, the R.T.A., Nadia considered the matter and decided in favour of rotational time-table with timings to be alternately following by the two bus owners, namely, the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 and the decision was communicated by the Secretary, R.T.A, Nadia, under his memo No. 889(2) MV dated 20.4.93 which is Annexure-G. In this writ petition the petitioner-has challenged the said memo dated 20.4.93 regarding rotational time-table required to be followed by the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner's contention is that down from 1989 he has been plying his bus on the fixed time-table approved by the R.T.A. and there is no valid reason now for asking him to follow and share a rotational time-table in place of his fixed time-table, particularly when be has built up a reputation for rendering satisfactory service to the travelling public on his fixed time-table during all these years and there is absolutely no complain from any quarter in respect of the service rendered by him on his fixed time-table. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the rotational time-table is sought to be introduced by the R.T.A. at the instance of the respondent for the sole purpose of giving an advantage to the respondent No. 5 at the cost of the petitioner and against the goodwill earned by the petitioner by his sincere and satisfactory service rendered during all these years to the travelling public on that route on his fixed time-table.

(3.) Sec. 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 requires that an application for a stage carriage permit shall contain certain particulars mentioned therein including '(c) the minimum and maximum number of daily trips proposed to be provided and the time-table of the normal trips'. Sec. 71(2) authorises the R.T.A. to refuse to grant a stage carriage permit if it appears from any time-table furnished that the provisions of this Act relating to the speed at which the vehicle may be driven are likely to be contravened but in that case before such refusal an opportunity shall be given to the applicant to amend the time-table so as to conform to the said provisions. Sec. 72(2) provides that the R.T.A. while granting a stage carriage permit, may attach to the permit any one or more of the conditions mentioned in the said sub-section (2) including the condition '(iv) that copies of the time-table of the stage carriage approved by the Regional Transport Authority shall be exhibited on the vehicles and at specified stands and halts on the route or within the area'. Clause (xxii) of sub-section (2) of Sec. 72 however provides inter alia that the R.T.A. may, after giving notice of less than one month, (a) vary the conditions of the permit and (b) attach to the permit further conditions. The proviso to rule 118 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles rules, 1989 provides inter alia that the Transport Authority may also attach to the permit a condition that the time-table as originally approved maybe subject to such amendments/changes as may seem to the Transport Authority to be reasonable and that, in case of such amendment, if any, the interest of the State Transport undertaking operating services on the route or in the area should be given priority. Rule 161 provides for variation of permit. In view of the said rule upon application made by the permit holder or by any person or of its own motion the R.T.A. or State Transport Authority may vary the permit or any condition thereof alter giving a notice of not less than one month. Where however representation has been made by any person in connection with the grant of a stage carriage permit or a goods carriage permit the Transport Authority shall not, subsequent to the issue of the permit, vary the permit or any condition thereof in a manner prejudicial to any person against whom such representation has been made unless the said Authority afforded such person a reasonable opportunity of making a representation in respect of the proposed variation of the permit or any condition thereof. Such opportunity of making a representation may however be dispensed with in circumstances mentioned in sub-rule (3) of rule 161 which are however not relevant in the present context. I have given above a bird's-eye view of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules mainly for the purpose of emphasising that the approved time table for a vehicle under a stage carriage permit is not liable to be changed arbitrarily or capriciously.