MA SANTOSHI TRANSPORT Vs. SASUN KR BARUI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

(2.) This contempt Rule arose out of the alleged violation of the order dated 19th September, 2005 passed in W.P. 15902 (W) of 2005 whereby the time table as fixed by the Sub-Committee as constituted, which was de hors of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules, being impugned in the writ application thereof, was stayed till final hearing of the writ upon giving liberty to the existing operators concerned to lodge any dispute under Rule 119 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 with reference to the time table as fixed by the Regional Transport Authority, Burdwan while issuing the permit, being Stage Carriage Permit, in the concerned route with a rider that the Regional Transport Authority, in the event of lodging any dispute by any Operator, would decide the matter upon hearing the petitioners and the Objector thereof. In the contempt application in Paragraphs 9 and 10 it has been alleged that the alleged contemnor, Sri Barui, who is the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, Burdwan violated the order of the Court in view of contumacious act and conduct, namely, non service of any notice of hearing to the petitioners before disposal of the objection as raised by the existing Operator, Jagadish Gupta and non-service of copy of the objection upon the petitioners despite requisition to serve as made by filing a registered letter, as such letter, as was intended to be served by hand, was refused by the gentleman. In the contempt application the petitioners accordingly have assailed the subsequent decision of fixation of timetable on adjudicating the objection raised by one Jagadish Gupta by the alleged contemner by taking a decision on 17th February, 2006, which is annexed at page 36 of the contempt application. The petitioners also have prayed for punishment of the alleged contemner suitably on adjudicating the matter. The Contempt Rule was issued against the alleged Contemner, Sri Barui and Affidavit-in-Opposition has been filed by him wherein the contention raised in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the contempt application about non-service of any notice of hearing in terms of the Court's order and non-service of the objection as filed by another Objector was denied by contending, inter alia, that on 15th February, 2006 hearing date was fixed, but the same was adjourned due to administrative reasons by re-fixing the date of hearing on 17th February, 2006 at 12 noon with intimation to the writ petitioners as well as the objectors verbally and on 17th February, 2006 the matter was disposed of in presence of the writ petitioner and the objectors, but the writ petitioner refused to sign the minutes. In paragraph 6 it has been further averred that the requisition notice asking to serve copy of the objection was received by the Office after hearing on 17th February, 2006 and as such, copy of the objection was not possible to be supplied. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the petitioner reiterating the contention made in the contempt application and by further contending, inter alia, that the petitioner never was present when the matter was heard and no notice of adjourned date as alleged was served. Before considering the Contempt Rule, the factual matrix of the writ in summary since would be helpful to adjudicate the issue, is stated herein below.

(3.) From the last portion of the order accordingly it appears that the Regional Transport Authority was directed to dispose of the matter after hearing the writ petitioner and the objector in the event any dispute was raised. It is the stand of the alleged contemner in the Affidavit-in- opposition that notice of hearing was duly served to the writ petitioners on the issue of the objection as raised by one Jagadish Gupta under Memo No. 616/1(2)2/MV dated 1st February, 2006. Learned Advocate for the alleged contemner, however, has very frankly submitted before this Court that no objection as filed by Sri Jagadish Gupta was served to the petitioners either before the date of hearing or after the date of hearing. In the Affidavit-in- opposition filed by the alleged contemner it is implied as the alleged contemner accepted by contending, inter alia, that as the notice asking for service of copy of the objection was received by his office after hearing was concluded on 17th February, 2006, no copy of the objection was served upon the petitioners. The notice as was allegedly served upon the petitioners inviting them to attend the hearing on 15th February, 2006 at 12 noon has been annexed, which is at page 32 of the contempt application, which reads to this effect: