RAMSANKAR BANERJEE Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short, but important and interesting point involved in this case is, whether the Secretary, regional Transport Authority, with out any delegation or appropriate resolution, can discharge the function of such authority.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioners were holders of a permanent stage carriage permit bearing No. Pst. P. 738 in respect of stage carriage No. WGA 2504, in Route No. 2 (Serampore to bandel), which was issued by the Regional Transport Authority, chinsurah Hooghly. This route, for convenience sake would hereinafter be referred to as the said route. It also appear from the statements in the petition that both the petitioners are residents of Chinsurah and petitioner No. 2 Ram Raghab banerjee, was to remain away from such place on account of his service. The petitioner no. 1 Ram Sankar Banerjee of course, appears to have been staying at Chinsurah.

(3.) THERE was a closure of How rah Amta Light Railway and as a result thereof, the inhabitants of Seakhala and the surrounding areas were suffering much and to obviate such difficulties, the Regional Transport Authority, Chinsurah, respondent no. 1, directed chat two out of the total number of buses, plying on the said route would ply under temporary permits to be granted it. Notation, between Serampore and Siakhnla. The petitioners' turn for such plying the said stage carriage fell within the period from 15th May 1973 to 21st May 1973. It has been stated that on 16th may 1973, that is during the period a of such temporary plying, Ram Sankar banerjee, petitioner No. 1, who was in charge of the vehicle and was looking after and supervising the same, had to leave Chinsurah and he was detained upto 22nd May 1973. During the said period, the petitioners have stated that the concerned vehicle remained in charge of their drivers and conductors, as on duty. It further appear from the statement in the petition that during the absence of the petitioners in the manner as Indicated above and within the course of such temporary plying, the concerned vehicle played on hire for a marriage party and met with an accident. Such accident, caused the death of a person traveling in such vehicle. It is the categorical assertion of the petitioners that they never got the concerned vehicle hired out to the marriage party and neither of the petitioners were responsible for the incident that had happened. It is their case that if any one was responsible, they would either be the conductor or the driver under whose care the concerned vehicle was, during the absence of the petitioners. In short, the petitioners have sought to get themselves out of the liability, which I think they cannot. As owners, they are really bound and responsible for acts of their agents and as such, the defense as taken in the manner as indicated above, would be of no avail. The petitioners have also mentioned that for such action a Criminal case under section 279/320a/ 337 of the Indian Penal Code has been initiated, against the conductor and the proceeding is still pending. In the meantime, it further appears that the secretary of the Regional Transport authority concerned, being respondent no. 2, issued a notice to show cause to the petitioners as to why their permit in respect of the said route and the vehicle as mentioned above, should not be cancelled. This notice, the petitioners have stated, was not served on either of them because of their temporary absence. In any event, they have mentioned that from a subsequent happening in annexure A to this petition, which is dated 18th June 1973 and whereby the said Secretary, respondent No. 2, informed them that the Regional Transport authority, Hooghly would consider the case on the next meeting, they came to know about the initiation of the proceeding. Such initiation, has been claimed in this proceeding, to be void and without jurisdiction or authority, because it has been contended that there has, neither been any delegation of such power too the Secretary concerned nor he was authorised to take such steps by a specific resolution of the Regional Transport authority concerned.