AVARANI SINHA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a resolution of the S.T.A., West Bengal as communicated to the petitioner under letter dated 31-12-93 which is Annexure-F to the writ application, the petitioner's prayer for temporary stage carriage permit on the route Itaberia to Howrah Railway Station was rejected on the ground that the 'main alignment of the route coincided with the Calcutta-Digha route which was a notified route and no ground for temporary permit was felt'. Being aggrieved by the said resolution the petitioner has moved this Court for appropriate relief under Article 226. Earlier under a resolution of the S.T.A. dated 28-8-92 the petitioner was granted temporary permit on the said route Howrah-Itaberia via, Patashpur, Amarshi, Bhagabanpur, Bajkul, Narghat and Mechada (vide Annexure-A). That temporary permit was granted for 17 weeks. In the said resolution of the S.T.A. it was recorded that it had been stated that there was no direct transport communication from Itaberia to Calcutta and the poor villagers of the locality had to reach Calcutta by changing bus twice and it would therefore be a very great benefit to the local people if a bus would ply from Itaberia to Calcutta direct. Obviously those were the factors which prompted the S.T.A. to grant temporary permit to the petitioner on the said route. Thereafter also the petitioner was granted temporary permit on that route and the last temporary permit expired on 27-6-93. However before the expiry of the said last temporary permit the petitioner applied for further temporary permit till grant of permanent permit. He also moved this Court earlier in the matter and by order dated the 17/09/1993, Annexure-E to the writ application, this Court directed the S.T.A. to consider the petitioner's application for temporary permit for the concerned route and also to take into consideration their earlier resolution dated 28-8-92. Thereafter the S.T.A. by the impugned resolution rejected the petitioner's application for temporary permit on the grounds earlier noted. In rejecting the application the S.T.A. however did not take into consideration their earlier resolution dated 28-8-92 although they were specifically directed by this Court to take the same into consideration.

(2.) It is really very surprising that after granting successive temporary permits to the petitioner for the concerned route, in the impugned resolution the S.T.A. recorded an observation in an isolated way that 'no ground for temporary permit was felt'. This is more surprising in view of the fact that initially temporary permit was granted to the petitioner for that route in considering the benefit of the local people for travelling to Calcutta direct from Itaberia without requiring them to change bus twice. In the background of the circumstances in which the temporary permit was initially granted to the petitioner for the concerned route and in the background that the temporary permit was successively granted to the petitioner, the latest decision of the STA that 'no ground for temporary permit was felt' seems to be patently capricious and a product of non-application of mind to relevant factors including their earlier resolution dated 28-8-92 which they were specifically asked by the Court to take into consideration. The other ground, namely, that the main alignment of the route coincided with the Calcutta-Digha route which was a notified route also is not at all a sound ground. Indeed Calcutta/Howrah-Digha is a notified route in respect of the alignment mentioned in the Transport Department Notification No. 12790-WT dated the 15/09/1988 and Notification No. 12788-WT dated the 15/09/1988 which are Annexure-G to the writ application. By the said Notification No. 12788-WT the S.B.S.T.C. was allowed to operate stage carriage service in respect of the concerned route to the partial exclusion of other persons and by the said Notification No. 12790-WT the C.S.T.C. was allowed to operate stage carriage service in the concerned route to the total exclusion of other operators. It is argued very strenuously by the learned Advocate for the respondents that in view of such Notifications private operators are not entitled to any permit in respect of any route having any alignment with any portion of the notified route Calcutta/Howrah Digha. But then there are two other subsequent orders issued by the Transport Department which patently mitigate the rigours of the above mentioned Notifications. One such order of the Transport Department is No. 6932-WT dated the 14/06/1989 and the other is No. 11000-WT dated the 18/09/1989 which are Annexures-H and I respectively to the writ application. These orders were issued in the background of the aforesaid Notification Nos. 12790 and 12788 dated the 15/09/1988 because it was felt that the Calcutta State Transport Corporation and South Bengal State Transport Corporation were unable to provide adequate services in respect of routes which crosses or overlaps the notified alignment of the route Calcutta/Howrah-Digha. These orders therefore authorise grant of permits to others in respect of routes which were in existence as on 15/09/1988 and were being maintained under permanent or temporary permits although such routes might have crossed or overlapped with any portion of the notified route. The learned Advocate for the respondents strenuously argued that the said orders would authorise grant of permit in respect of overlapping routes only in favour of persons who were earlier enjoying such permits on 15/09/1988. On a reading of the two orders as a whole, I find it difficult to accept the argument of the learned Advocate for the respondents in this respect. The reference to the 15/09/1988 in the said two orders was in respect of routes, or vacancies wherever applicable, and not in respect of holders of permits. It is true that permits have been mentioned in the said two orders but that has been done only to signify that some vehicles were plying on the concerned routes under permits granted by the appropriate authority. The power of the appropriate authority was however not circumscribed by the said orders to grant permits only in favour of those persons who were earlier holding permits for the concerned routes. If the routes were there the concerned authority is authorised to grant permit even to a new applicant. Therefore the argument of the learned Advocate for the respondents cannot be accepted that unless one was holding a permit for the overlapping route on the 15/09/1988 he cannot be granted a permit later in respect of such route. The fact that the petitioner was granted permit earlier on the self-same route by the S.T.A. also raises a presumption that the permit was granted in accordance with law and if no such route had been in existence on the 15/09/1988 the S.T.A. would not have granted successive permits earlier to the petitioner for plying vehicle on that route, because unless the contrary is shown, every official act is presumed to have been done validly and in accordance with law. Therefore the sudden refusal of temporary permit to the petitioner on the ground that the main alignment of the concerned route coincided with the Calcutta-Digha notified route, contrary to its earlier decisions granting successive permits and even without referring to such earlier decisions, not to speak of explaining the same, clearly tantamounts to an act of arbitrariness and the same is liable to be quashed. The arbitrariness of the decision of the S.T.A. in the matter is also writ large in view of the fact that in spite of specific direction of the Court the S.T.A. while disposing of the application of the petitioner by its impugned order, did not take into consideration its earlier resolution dated 28-8-92. Accordingly the impugned resolution of the S.T.A., West Bengal which is Annexure-F to the writ application is hereby quashed and the S.T.A. is directed to grant temporary permit to the petitioner for a period of 17 weeks for the route Itaberia to Howrah within 7 days from the date of communication of this order. The S.T.A. is further directed to consider the application of the petitioner for permanent permit on the said route and dispose of the same in accordance with law by passing a speaking order within 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The writ application accordingly stands allowed with costs to the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. D. K. Seth, learned Advocate appearing for S.T.A. prays for stay of operation of this order and such prayer is refused.