PROBIDH CHANDRA GHOSE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENAGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject-matter of challenge in this writ application is the resolution dated January 5, 2006 adopted in the meeting of the respondent No. 2 and the order passed by the respondent No. 3 under memo No. 855 (2) dated october 10, 2006.

(2.) THE fact of the case in a nutshell is this the petitioners were the owners of vehicle (bus) bearing registration No. WGA/5410 and the same was attached to the Stage Carriage Permit on the route from Malda to chanchal (1 up and 1 dn) and from Malda to Gangarampur (1 up and 1 dn ). The respondent No. 2 as per notice issued under memo No. 1214 (5) M. V. dated September 7, 2005 invited applications from the intending owners of the vehicles having Stage Carriage Permit in their favour for addition curtailment or alteration of their routes. Pursuant to the above notice dated september 23, 2005 the petitioners submitted an application before the respondent No. 2 for changing alignment of the existing route attached to the above Stage Carriage Permit of the petitioners to allow them to ply their aforesaid vehicle on the route from Nalagola to Malda (2 up and 2 dn ). The respondent No. 2 in its meeting dated January 5, 2006 considered the above application of the petitioners dated September 23, 2005 and rejected the same. The petitioners filed an application under Article 226 of the constitution of India being W. P. No 7081 (W) of 2006 challenging the above decision of the respondent authority and the aforesaid writ application was disposed of on August 2, 2006 directing the respondent authority to consider the application of the petitioners dated September 23, 2005 afresh. Thereafter, the respondent authority rejected the application on the following grounds : i) If the application of the petitioners along with other ten similar applications were allowed the route from Malda to Nalagola would be congested of the number of vehicles on the route Malda to chanchal and Malda to Gangrampur would be decreased. ii) The route claimed by the petitioners (Malda to Nalagola) had been filled up by other vehicles and no further vehicle could be accommodated on that route. iii) If the petitioners were allowed to withdraw their vehicle from the route from Malda to Chanchal via Manikchak, the passengers of that route would suffer due to insufficiency of the vehicles on that route. iv) As the route from Malda to Chanchal via Manikchak came within the jurisdictions of two regions, the respondent No. 2 could not take a decision of withdrawal of the permit without the consent of its counterpart. v) Unless an application was submitted by the petitioner for a new permit the application of the petitioner could not be granted in view of the petitioner could not be granted in view of the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 105 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. vi) The petitioners did not process three year's experience to ply the vehicle in question on the existing route. vii) In view of the decision of G. Veerappa Pilai vs. Raman U Raman ltd. Kunakoreta, reported in AIR 1952 SC 192, granting of permit is fully within the discretion of the transport authority depending on several circumstances to be taken into account.

(3.) APPEARING on behalf of the petitioner Mr. Amal Sen learned Advocate submits that none of the ground mentioned in the impugned order dated october 10, 2006 can be sustained in law. Drawing the attention of this court towards the pleading of the writ application Mr. Sen submits that the respondent authority allowed the vehicle being Registration No. WB-65/ 5303 (existing route : Ashrampur to Malda and Malda to Nalagola) to ply on the route from Nalagola to Malda (2 up and 2 dn) by adopting a resolution in its meeting dated January 5, 2005. Two other vehicles being Registration nos. WB-73/2347 and WB-57/1010 (existing route Nalagola to Raghunathganj)were also allowed to ply their vehicle on the route from Malda to Nalagola (2 up and 2 dn) adopting resolution in its meeting dated January 5, 2006 so the petitioners were discriminated. Mr, Sen further submits that ground of non-existence of the vacancy on the route in question cannot be sustained in law in view of the above fact. With regard to the question of insufficiency of the vehicle on the occasion of withdrawn of the petitioner's vehicle from the route in question. Mr. Sen relied upon an unreported decision dated june 24, 1993 in the matter of Shankar Kumar Dey vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. (In re : Matter No. Nil of 1992) that the branding of a vehicle with the existing route rejecting the prayer to change the route was contrary to law. With regard to the question of taking decision for withdrawal of a permit attached to more than one region. Mr. Sen submits that in accordance with the provisions of Rule 103 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, no permission was required to be obtained in case of withdrawn of a permit. Regarding the experience of the petitioners, to ply the vehicle in question on the existing route for three years. Mr. Sen submits that the above condition had been fulfilled because the experience was required to ply the vehicle in question and the permit in question being No. PSTS 1459/88 had been issued as bad as in the year 1988. It was irrelevant consideration whether permit was transfer from one person to anoher. With regard to the law laid down in the matter G. Veerappa Pilai (supra) Mr. Sen submits that the same was not applicable in the instant case. In view of the fact that the petitioners satisfied all the conditions for changing the route in connection of their Stage Carriage Permit in question.