BIPLAN DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of MAT 2673 of 2007 with an application for Stay (CAN 8424 of 2007) and AST 1640 of 2007, as both the appeals have challenged a common order dated 31st August, 2007 passed in CAN 7562 of 2007.

(2.) THE petitioners filed a Writ Petition being W. P. No. 713 of 2007 claiming therein that although the petitioners had been granted a stage carriage permit on 18th May, 2007, but the fare table which is an essential part of the permit had been illegally denied. The petitioners claimed that they had made a representation on 6th June, 2007 to the respondent authorities. Even the aforesaid representation was not decided. This inaction of the Regional Transport Authority prompted the petitioners to file the writ petition. This writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent Regional Transport Authority to consider and dispose of the representation dated 6th june, 2007 by passing a reasoned order within two months.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order the petitioners filed an appeal being APOT 332 of 2007. It was pleaded that the learned single Judge ought to have issued a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Regional Transport Authority to frame a fare table. The appeal was allowed with the observation that the fare table is a part of the permit and the Regional Transport Authority cannot refuse to issue a fare table. The trial Judge, therefore, erred in not issuing the mandatory order directing issuance of the fare table. The judgment of the learned single Judge was, therefore, modified to the extent that the Regional Transport Authority would issue fare table in respect of the permit which had been specified, i. e. Route no. 17 being Belgachia to Salt Lake and back via Posta, Vivekananda Road, A. P. C. Road, hemanta Bose Setu and Ultadanaga. It was also observed that save and except on the specified route aforesaid, no other fare table should be issued and in doing so, the Regional Transport Authority need not hear any of the parties either the petitioners or the respondents who opposed the writ application. We may also notice that the Division Bench had categorically observed that there is no scope of hearing of any other existing operator on the said route and/or on any other route which is overlapping with the route in question.