COMMISSIONER OF BURDWAN DIVISION Vs. MRINAL KANTI CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Commissioner of Burdwan Division against an order of Sinha. J. . dated the 1st of December, 1954, whereby the learned judge quashed an order made by the appellant Commissioner on the 18th of July, 1952 and, consequently, quashed an order dated the 5th of May, 1952, of the Regional Transport Authority for the Hooghly Region. In my opinion, the appeal is absolutely without any merits.

(2.) THE learned Judge's order was made on an application made under Article 22g of the Constitution by one Mrinal Kanti Chatterjee, who is respondent No. 1 in this appeal. It appears that Mrinal Chatterjee's father, and after him Mrinal Kanti himself, held a State Carriage permit for Route No. 2 (Chinsurah-Serampore), but the permit was lost on account of non-payment of the renewal fee which is said to have been caused by certain circumstances stated in the petition. Thereafter, Mrinal Kanti asked for and obtained a temporary permit for a period of three months expiring on the 27th of February, 1952, but when he applied for a second temporary permit after the terms of the first had expired, his application was rejected. In the meantime, a permanent vacancy had arisen on account of the failure of the holder of another permit to renew it and applications had been invited from the public with respect to that vacancy. Mrinal Kanti made an application which, along with twenty-eight other applications, came to be considered at a meeting of the Regional Transport Authority held on the 7th of April, 1952. On that day, the matter was considered only in part and further consideration was adjourned till the next meeting which was directed to be held on the 28th of April following. On the 28th of April, consideration of the applications was concluded and Mrinal Kanti's application was rejected on the ground that the police report about him was not favourable. Against that order Mrinal Kanti appealed to the Commissioner of the Burdwan Division, but by an order, dated the 18th of July, 1952, the Commissioner dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Regional Transport Authority. I may mention here that of the twenty-nine applicants before the Regional Transport Authority, the application of one Pijush Kanti Sinha Ray, who is respondent No. 2 in this appeal, was accepted.

(3.) THE application to this court was directed only against the order of the Commissioner. This was rather unusual, because even if- the appellate order was quashed, the order of the Regional Transport Authority would remain. The learned judge seems to have noticed that difficulty, and he has, accordingly, treated the order of the Regional Transport Authority as merged in the order of the Commissioner and having found reason to quash the former, quashed the latter as well.