NARESH ROY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A contract carriage permit was proposed to be issued to the petitioner in respect of modified route from Aratigram to Panchmatha More (Prantica) via Murari Sweets Milonpally Steel Co-operative pursuant to the impugned R.T.A. Board resolution dated 11.05.2003. It has been recorded in the said resolution that the petitioner consented to such modified route. The petitioner received an offer letter for grant of such permit in June, 2013 wherein the modified route was indicated. As late as on November 20, 2013 the petitioner made a representation to the respondent authority, inter alia, claiming that he had not consented to the modified route and such consent had been incorrectly recorded in the impugned resolution. In the absence of consent, grant of permit for modified route was impermissible. Accordingly he prayed for setting aside of the impugned resolution dated 11.05.2013 and reconsideration of his prayer for grant of permit for the route as prayed for in his application:

(2.) Mr. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the consent had not been given by his client and that upon coming to know of the modified route from the offer letter, his client made representation to the concerned authority. He accordingly prayed for consideration of his representation and setting aside of the impugned resolution.

(3.) Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the State respondents submitted that no review of the decision of the R.T.A. Board is called for in the facts of the present case. He submitted that contention of the petitioner that consent had not been given is clearly an afterthought, inasmuch as, the petitioner slept over the matter for about five months and thereafter belatedly made the representation retracting his consent. He further submitted that not only the representation was belated, there was no pleading affirmed as true to the knowledge of the petitioner to that effect.