SANJIT CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24.12.2003 in Writ Petition No. 18082(W) of 2003. The appellant is holder of a permanent stage carriage permit on the route Sonachandi Tea Estate to Siliguri via Kharibari, which was valid till 11th March, 2007. Respondent No.2 State Transport Authority, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as STA) had issued numerous permits covering two regions i.e. Jalpaiguri and Darjeeling. The petitioner challenged the issuance of such permits on the ground that the STA had no jurisdiction to issue such stage carriage permits on the routes (local services) covering the regions of Jalpaiguri and Darjeeling. The action of the State Transport Authority was stated to be in contravention to various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Particular reference was made to section 68(3)(b) and section 69 of the Act. The petitioner objected to grant of such permits by making a representation on 1.11.2003. Since the objection raised by the petitioner had not been decided by State Transport Authority, the present was filled seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State Transport Authority to consider and dispose of the objections. After hearing the Counsel for the parties the learned Single Judge held that no legally enforceable right of the petitioner has been infringed. The learned Single Judge also held that existing permit holder cannot dispute an illegal grant of permit to another. The only ground on which the grant of such permit could be challenged is that the permit has been granted without authority of law i.e. the permit granted by an authority having no jurisdiction. Hence, the present appeal by the petitioner/appellant.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has wrongly held that the writ petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the grant of permit by the State Transport Authority. He further argued that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the real impact and spirit of the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 15432 (W) of 2001 (delivered by Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. on 8.4.2002). The permit has been issued by State Transport Authority without having any jurisdiction to do so under section 68(3)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The permit having been issued by an authority without jurisdiction could be challenged by the petitioner/appellant even though he was an existing permit holder. The words "if it thinks fit" have been interpreted by a judgment of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in the case of Dayalal N. Joshi vs. State Transport Authority, Orissa, Cuttack & Ors. reported in AIR 1973 Orissa 39. Considering the provisions of section 44(3) of the old Motor Vehicles Act, which pari materia in section 68(3) of the present Act, it was held that unless material is placed before the Court to show that State Transport Authority decided to assume the jurisdiction over the route in question, such exercise should be deemed to be illegal exercise of jurisdiction. In the present case there was no request from the two Regional Transport Authority functioning in the two district of Siliguri and Darjeeling requesting the State Transport Authority to exercise jurisdiction on the route covering two districts. There was also no dispute between the two Regional Transport Authorities. Therefore, the State Transport Authority could not have assumed jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, wrongly come to the conclusion that the State Transport Authority had the jurisdiction to issue permit covering two or more regions lying within the State. Apart from the aforesaid two judgments the learned Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanchan & Ors. vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal & Ors. reported in 2006(2) CLJ 153.

(3.) We have considered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. We have also perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge which clearly shows that each and every submission made by the learned Counsel has been considered. Therefore, it would not be possible to hold that any of the judgments cited by the Counsel for the petitioner/appellant have not been duly considered. In the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 443, it has been clearly held that an existing permit holder cannot challenge the grant of permit to other operators, on the same route, even it had been granted illegally. In view of these observations it would have to be held that the petitioner/ appellant had no locus standi to file the present petition. Undoubtedly, the petitioner is an existing permit holder. No legally enforceable right of the petitioner having been infringed the writ petition was clearly not maintainable. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has correctly noted the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of (1) State of Punjab vs. Suraj Prakash, AIR 1963 SC 507, (2) State of Orissa vs State of West Bengal, AIR 1963 SC 1044. The existence of legally enforceable right and infringement thereof is the sine qua non for seeking relief in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.