HIRALAL CHATTERJEE Vs. INDRA NARAYAN CHATTERJEE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order of D. Basu, J. dated June 20, 1968 in Civil Rule No.122(W) of 1966. The facts as appearing from the petition are as follows : The Regional Transport Authority, Bankura, (hereinafter referred to as ?R.T.A.?) declared one vacancy on Bankura to Golabari via Indpur and Khatra Road and applications were invited for permits. The petitioner as also opposite party No.2 and others applied for the same and altogether 78 applications were received. The police verifications were made in respect of the said candidates. About opposite party no.2 the police report stated that he was holding permits in other routes, solvent to purchase bus, though he had no knowledge of driving motors. About the petitioner the Police report said that he had experience of motor transport business for ten years, held no permit in any route and was solvent to purchase bus. It was further stated that the opposite party no.2 had also share in other passenger transport firms in other routes of the district. It was stated in the petition that the persons who were drivers like the petitioner were given special consideration. In spite of the fact that the opposite party no.2 was holding share in businesses and firms that were granted permits in the two routes of the district and he was not a driver, he was given permit in the disputed route by a resolution of the R.T.A. dated September 21, 1963 in violation of r. 57A of the Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules on the ground that the said opposite party did not hold permit exclusively. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate sub-committee of the State Transport Authority and the grant of the permit to the opposite party no.2 was set aside and the case was remanded for reconsideration from the stage prior to September 21.1963. Again, at the meeting of September 27, 1965 the R.T.A. granted one permit to the opposite party no.2 in Bankura to Suri via Ilambazar. The application in respect of the disputed route was considered by the R.T.A. on November 17 and 20, 1965 and the R.T.A. again granted permit to the said opposite party no.2. This grant of the permit was challenged by the petitioner in the concerned Rule on the ground inter alia that it was in violation of r. 57A as the said opposite party was also a shareholder in the two firms who had permits in other routes of the district. Further the petitioner himself was a driver and conductor and thus had considerable experience in passenger transport business and he was a more suitable candidate. On these allegations and contentions the petitioner moved this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitutions praying for a writ in the nature of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from giving effect to the proceeding granting permit to the said opposite party and also for a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the same.

(2.) The Rule was opposed by the opposite party No.1, the Secretary of the R.T.A. who filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating that experience as drive has never been accepted as requisite experience in passenger transport business. Rule 57A applies only when other conditions are equal, preference is to be given to the persons who hold no permits. Permit was granted to the opposite party no.2 who in view of his long experience and sufficient funds to place adequate vehicle was selected by the R.T.A. after full consideration as he was found most suitable candidate for the grant and r. 57A had no application. It was accordingly submitted that the permit was granted to the said opposite party in accordance with law and all allegations contrary thereto were denied. There was an affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the opposite party no.2 who also denied all allegations against him in the petition. It was submitted that he had some two annas share in Kalika Company and one-third share in Lakshmi Transport Company which had the said transport permits. It was also stated that he had permit exclusively in his name in a different route by a resolution of the R.T.A. of September 27, 1965. It was submitted that r. 57A had no application as there was no doubt that he was a more suitable candidate.

(3.) An affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the petitioner reiterating the allegation made in the petition