B D MOTORS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court : In the instant writ application, the writ petitioner has challenged a resolution of the State Transport Authority dated 8th March, 1995 rejecting the application of the writ petitioner for grant of a permanent permit in the route Calcutta to Solepatta on the ground that a major part of the route is aligned with Calcutta to Digha route which is a notified one.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that in the year 1986, he made an application before the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, prayer's for grant of permit on the route Calcutta to Chandnali via Contai, Balasore, whereupon the petitioner was informed that the said inter-State route had not been published in the official gazette and the question of issuance of permit, as applied for, may be taken up for further consideration after the relevant notification is published in the Calcutta Gazette. After receiving such communication, the petitioner made a representation before the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, for allowing them to ply up to Bengal border, i.e., up to Solepatta till the route is officially established as indicated in the aforesaid letter by the Secretary, State Transport Authority, West Bengal. But as the petitioner did not receive and communication, he moved this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was disposed of by N. K. Mitra, J., after directing the State Transport Authority, West Bengal to send the proposal to State Transport Authority, Orissa, for grant of permit of the route from Calcutta to Chandnali via Contai and Solepatta with a further direction that in the meantime, the petitioner would be granted a temporary permit on ad hoc basis for running its buses from Calcutta to Solepatta via Contai for a period of four months from the date of issuance of such permit. It was also made clear by the aforesaid order passed by N. K. Mitra, J. that such grant of temporary permit would not give the petitioner any right to get temporary permit or permanent permit in the said route as a matter of course. It is the further case of the petitioner that the State Transport Authorities thereafter issued successive temporary permits till 16.1.93 and on the basis of the same, the petitioner had been plying its vehicle uninterruptedly. It is further contended by the petitioner that after the new Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 came into operation on 22.5.89 the petitioner made an application for a permanent stage permit for the route Calcutta to Solepatta on 2.1.92 along with all requisites. As the said application was not disposed of, the petitioner moved this Hon'ble Court once again under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was disposed of by Haridas Das, J. on 8.6.92 directing inter alias that the respondent nos. 2 to 4 shall, consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner for permanent stage carriage permit made by the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid route in accordance with law and in the light of direction given hereinbefore after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and by passing a reasoned order within four weeks from the date of communication of the said order and the respondents shall go on granting temporary permits until the application for permanent stage carriage permit is finally decided and the decision thereof is communicated to the petitioner and status quo as regards plying of the vehicle shall be maintained till the last decision is communicated. Thereafter by the impugned order the application of the petitioner was rejected on the aforesaid ground.

(3.) The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the State Transport Authority cannot refuse the permit of the petitioner on the aforesaid grounds, namely that the same is aligned with the major part of the route which is notified. It has been contended that even after the said notification in respect of the said route, other permits have been issued after the so-called nationalisation and accordingly, the respondents cannot reject the application of the petitioner on the aforesaid grounds. It has been further contended that the petitioner has been plying his vehicle in the said route since 1986 and has acquired a right of plying and the same cannot be taken away in the manner aforesaid. The respondents on the other hand in their affidavit-in-opposition has contended, inter alia, that in terms of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in the earlier proceedings, the State Transport Authority has considered the application of the petitioner for granting permit in accordance with law and after careful consideration has rejected such application, as the proposed route of the petitioner is aligned with the major apart of the notified route. It has further been contended in the affidavit-in-opposition that initially the route Calcutta to Digha was notified in favour of Calcutta State Transport Corporation to the total exclusion of other operators and the route Digha to Howrah was notified in favour of South Bengal State Transport Corporation to the partial exclusion of others. Subsequently, the scheme was framed which was published by the Notification dated 15th September 1988, whereby the previous notification was modified. In respect of the route Calcutta/Howrah to Digha in the greater interest of the public it was modified to the extent that notwithstanding the said scheme published under section 68D(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939, the Regional Transport Authority, Howrah-Midnapore and the Director, Public Vehicle Department of the Regional Transport Authority, Calcutta and 24-Parganas may grant temporary or permanent permit in respect of such area or routes within the respective District/region of Howrah/Midnapore/Calcutta and 24-Parganas in respect of the services in the inter-regional routes to other persons and such number of carriage permits to secure or maintain adequacy of such services in such area or permits which may touch or over-lop the notified routes and also in such approved existing inter-regional routes excepting Howrah/Digha, Calcutta-Digha, which were in existence as on 15th September 1988 and were being maintained under permanent or temporary permits.