STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. NILIMA NAG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the State of West Bengal challenging the order dated 11. 02. 2004 as well as the subsequent order dated 04. 02. 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. N6. 1773 (W)of 2004 with C. A. N. No. 1947 of 2004 respectively.

(2.) WE may notice briefly the facts. The writ petitioner/respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'applicant' filed Writ Petition No. 19638 (W) of 2003 in which it was claimed that the petitioner had applied before the regional Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'rta'), 24-Parganas (South), for grant of a permanent stage carriage permit on 26th September, 2002 and, subsequently, the aforesaid application was considered by the RTA on 01. 11. 2002 but the result has not been communicated to the petitioner. When the writ petition came up for hearing, it was not disputed by the learned Advocate for the State that the result of the application had not been communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition was, therefore, disposed of by the direction to the RTA to communicate the result of the application to the writ petitioner/respondent positively within one month from the date of communication of the order. Instead of communicating the decision in terms of the aforesaid order, the rta gave fresh hearing to the application and rejected the same on two-fold grounds. . The grounds of rejection are as follows:-

(3.) CHALLENGING the aforesaid two grounds the applicant filed Writ petition No. 1773 (W) of 2004. At the time of hearing the learned Advocate for the applicant placed before the Court the resolution of the meeting held by RTA on 1st October, 2002 indicating that the application of the applicant, which was at Serial No. 13, had already been allowed. It was submitted that there was no reason for not communicating the order to the applicant. It was further submitted that ground No. 1 assigned in the impugned order is not tenable in the eye of law in view of the fact that the route for which application was made is not terminating within Kolkata city and, secondly, construction of flyover at Taratola More which is far away from terminal Taratola point of the route cannot be a ground of refusal of permit. Even the notification in the official gazette as required under the Motor Vehicles Act had not been published. The learned Single Judge held that since the application of the applicant had already been allowed in the meeting dated 01. 10. 2002, there was no just reason for not communicating such decision to the applicant and to consider the application afresh. The writ petition was allowed on 11th February, 2004 and the impugned order was quashed.