STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. ABUL KALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMITTEDLY, the writ petitioner-respondent applied for grant of permanent stage carriage permit on the route from Barasat Central Bus terminus to Baruipur via V. I. P. Road, Bypass and Garia on 2nd of september, 2003. The State Transport Authority considered the application in its Board Meeting held on 18th of February, 2004 and resolved that the application of the writ petitioner/respondent cannot be allowed. It was rejected on the ground that further entry of stage carriage permit in Howrah and Kolkata will aggravate the traffic congestion and vehicular pollution. This decision was duly communicated to the writ petitioner/respondent vide Office Memo dated 12th of May, 2004. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the writ petitioner/respondent had moved a writ application in this Court. By Order dated 14th of March, 2005, a single Judge of this court has been pleased to dispose of the writ petition by setting aside the resolution of the State Transport Authority with a direction to the State transport Authority to consider the application of the writ petitioner/ respondent. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the application of the writ petitioner was again considered. However, in the meeting held on 8th of april, 2005 the application was again rejected in view of the promutgation of the Notification No. 1010-WT/3m-154/2004 dated 11th February, 2005/ 18th of February, 2005. Aggrieved against the aforesaid resolution, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THE writ petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 8th of February, 2007. It has been held by the learned Single Judge that the Notification dated 18th February, 2005 cannot have any retrospective effect. Therefore, the resolution dated 8th april, 2005 has been set aside. Aggrieved against the afpresaid judgment, the present appeal has been filed by the State of West Bengal.

(3.) WE have heard the Counsel for the parties. Mr. Khan submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in holding that the claim made by the writ petitioner/respondent would not be covered by the Notification dated 18th of February, 2005. On the other land, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner submits that since the application of the writ petitioner for grant of the permit had been made prior to the promulgation of the Notification dated 11th of February/18th of February, 2005, the writ petitioner/respondent would be entitled to a stage carriage permit. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. We are of the considered opinion that the claim made by the writ petitioner/ respondent is squarely covered by the Notification dated 18th of February, 2005. In. this notification it is clearly mentioned that from the aforesaid date, the scheme formulated under Section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Act shall come into operation. The scheme has been duly approved under Section 100 (2) of the Act. It has been duly published. The scheme also provides that it has been formulated for the purpose of providing efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service. It is also provided that Calcutta State Transport Corporation shall operate on all the specified routes under the notification to the exclusion of all other passenger transport services. An exception has, however, been made in Clause 1 of the Notification as under :-