LAWS(CAL)-2005-9-65

SUJATA GANGULY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On September 27, 2005
SUJATA GANGULY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASES were coming before the Court every now and then that the State transport Authority (STA) was refusing permit originating and terminating from the city of Kolkata and Howrah on the ground of pollution and congestion in the bus terminus and sometimes immediately thereafter such permits were being granted. In some cases the refusal was supported by an alleged policy decision of the Government which was also so disclosed in some cases by affidavit. Ultimately, it was found that no such policy decision was ever taken in the circumstances, this Court having faced difficult situation in deciding this question, where the State Government was taking different stands in different cases, directed the State Government to form a committee to submit a report on the two grounds on which permits were being refused, and on the basis of such report to take a policy decision as it might think fit and proper.

(2.) MR. Manick Das, learned Advocate for some of the applicants has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition and the appeal on the ground that the writ petitioners have no locus standi since they are not interested in the plying of the vehicle; they are only common people. According to him the writ petition can only be treated as Public Interest Litigation which this Court cannot entertain. It should have been moved before the appropriate bench dealing with Public Interest Litigation.

(3.) MR. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had taken a point that the State Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to grant any permit in inter-regional routes or in intra-regional routes. The answer to this question may be found under section 68 (3) clause (b) of the 1988 Act. Normally, a Regional Transport Authority is supposed to deal with the question of grant of permit in intra-regional routes and inter-regional routes but in terms of clause (b) sub-section (3) of section 68, the State Transport Authority is empowered to perform the duties of the Regional Transport Authority in case (i) where there is no such transport authority; (ii) where it thinks fit to perform those duties in respect of that route common to two or more regions and (iii)where it is so required by the Regional Transport Authority to perform duties in respect of any routes common to two or more regions. Thus, this provision empowers the State Transport Authority to perform all and every duty even in respect of intra-regional routes where there is no regional transport authority. But in cases where there are Regional Transport Authority, the State Transport authority cannot deal with the grant of permit in intra-regional routes. However, it can deal with permits if the route is common to two or more regions in cases it is so required by the Regional Transport Authority to perform such duties and also in cases where the State Transport Authority thinks it fit to perform such duties in respect of such routes. Therefore, there is no total embargo on the State Transport Authority to deal with such cases; but it is expected that the State Transport Authority should make it clear by declaring a policy as to whether in and which case it would take up on itself the responsibility of granting permits in route common to two or more regions.