STATE OF WEST BENAGAL Vs. JAHANGIR ALI MALLICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Justice Pradipta Roy dated 12. 9. 2003 in connection with W. P. No. 11574 (W) of 2003 in the petitioner jahangir Ali Mallick was heard by the RTA Howrah on 05. 7. 2004 through the Id. Advocate Md. Rajjak Ali Gazi. The RTA considered the application for offer letter/permit on the Route no. 27 (Bankra to Park Circus) and resolved that the petitioner name already in the priority list of concern route in the serial No. 11. As per notification dated 20. 5. 2003 enhance vacancy is 13. But four offer letters have already been issued in favour of four persons as per mandatory order of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in W. P. No. 939 of 2000 (2) 17932 (W) of 2003 (3) W. P. No. 19661 (W) of 2003 and (4) W. P. 19473 (W) of 2004. So there is no scope for issuance of offer letter/permit in favour of the petitioner. At present all vacancy has been filled up. Yours faithfully, sd/-Secretary regional Transport Authority howrah"

(2.) IN the writ application nowwhere the petitioner has assailed the grant of permit to those four candidates whose writ applications were mentioned in the impugned decision by the Regional Transport Authority by making them parties in the proceeding on seeking review of the earlier mandatory order of the High Court whereby and whereunder those writ petitioners were granted route permit, save and except mentioning of the fact that other four writ petitioners were granted permit. No materials averred to identify the name of those writ petitioners for appropriate relief by the high Court as for example cancelling of the grant of permit in favour of the persons who were not in the priority list or who were in position Nos. 12 and 13 of the priority list as the case may be. The petitioner simply prays in this writ application the following reliefs:

(3.) IN the writ application there was no whisper about the mandatory order as passed by the High Court earlier which was taken as a shield to refuse the petitioner's claim by the Transport Authority. Petitioner ought to have assailed that order of the High Court and ought to have made the other four persons as parties in the proceeding seeking review of the earlier order of the High Court and praying cancellation of the grant of route permit for the purpose of fresh grant of permit in his favour following the priority and seniority list. In the writ application there is no such pleading, no averment and no prayer to that effect, but only prayer for not to give effect of the impugned decision and to grant permit in his favour.