SHIB PROSAD MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are four applications which involve common questions of fact and law. In fact, there has been only one set of argument in all these matters and it is convenient to deal with them in one judgment.

(2.) The facts in these cases are shortly as follows : There are two routes in Calcutta, namely, routes Nos. 10 and 10-A (Ballygunge Station to Howrah Station). In or about February, 1957, the said two routes were run by privately-owned stage carriages. 41 permits had been granted in respect of the said routes to different persons. All these permits were permanent permits renewed from time to time and at that stage the permits were valid upto 31-3-1957. Immediately before the expiry of the permits, applications were made for renewal for a further term. Thereupon, on or about 21-2-1957, notice of application was given, inviting representations against the renewal The only objection that was put forward was by the Director General of Transportation, on the ground that the State Government was going to nationalise the said routes and run the same by State buses. On 27-3-1957, an order was passed by the State Government purporting to be in exercise of power conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). By this order, the R. T. A. Calcutta was directed to limit the period for which stage carriage permits on routes Nos. 10, 10-A and 11 of the Calcutta region should be renewed only for six months ending with 30-9-1957. As will be stated presently, this order was made erroneously, overlooking the fact that the provision of law under which it was being made, had been repealed. This Fact was however detected sometime afterwards, and for the time being, the order was carried out by the R. T. A. and on the 28th March. 1957, permits in routes Nos. 10 and 10-A were ordered to be renewed for six months with effect from the 1st April 1957. Ultimately these two routes 10 and 10-A have been nationalised and are being run by State buses and the permit-holders in these two routes owning private buses have been diverted to another route or routes and this is what has given ruse to these applications.

(3.) Before I proceed further, it would be necessary to investigate as to how routes are nationalised, that is to say, taken over by Government, and the incidents thereof. Special provisions relating to State Transport undertakings have been introduced into the Act, by incorporating a new chapter called Chapter IVA, which was introduced by Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act 100 of 1856. This chapter contains nine sections, viz., 68-A to 68-I. Under Section 68-A (b) a "State Transport Undertaking" means any undertaking providing road transport service, where such undertaking is carried on by, inter alia, any corporation or company owned or controlled by State Government. Under Section 58-C, it is inter alia, provided that where a state transport undertaking is of opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport service, it is necessary in the public interest that road transport services in relation to any route should he run and operated by the State Transport undertaking to the exclusion of other persons, the State Transport undertaking may prepare a scheme and such scheme is to be published in the official gazette. Under Section 68-D, objections may be made to the scheme and such objections are to be considered by the State Government. Thereafter the scheme as approved or modified by the State Government is to be published in the official gazette and shall thereupon become final and is called the "approved scheme" and the route is called "the notified route." Section 68-F is important and the relevant part thereof is set out below : "68-F. Issue of permits to State Transport undertakings :