SUBHRANSHU MONDAL Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MIDNAPORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A notice bearing Memo No. 2871/MV dated 11th November, 1998, was pasted in the Notice Board of the Regional Transport Authority, Midnapur, inviting applications from intending candidates for grant of 10 (ten) temporary permits for the route: Haldia to Mechada Railway Station and 6 (six) temporary permits for the route: Haldia to Kukrahati Launch Ghat. The petitioner, a young educated unemployed person, acquired a new Bus and got the same registered on 12th November, 1998. In order to deploy his Bus on one of the said routes, he made an application in terms of the said notice on 17th November, 1998. The petitioner then did not hear anything officially from the RTA concerned and on enquiry he came to learn that at a meeting held on 24th December, 1998, the RTA concerned has rejected his application and has agreed to issue offer letters to others. The petitioner was surprised to learn that a Bus bearing Registration No. WB-29-1265 belonging to one Sri Gouri Bala Jana, which was plying on the route: Haldia to Howrah, has been permitted to be plied on one of the routes in question at the said meeting. He further came to learn that Sri Prasad Mondal, who has no Bus at all, has also been granted a permit or an offer letter. He also came to learn that the Bus bearing Registration No. WB-20-2225, which was then plying on the route : Kaigeria to Mechada Railway Station, was also granted permit on one of the rules in question. He then, applied on 24th March, 1999 for issue of a certified copy of the resolution of the RTA concerned dated 24th December, 1998. The petitioner was not given the certified copy of the said resolution. The petitioner, then, approached this Court by filing W.P. 6150 (W) of 1999. The said writ petition was dealt with by me on 12th July, 1999, when the Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Midnapore, was present in Court. It was then submitted by the Secretary, RTA Midnapore, as recorded in the order dated 12th July, 1999 that only in March, 1999, he has taken over the charge as the Secretary of the said RTA and that in January, 1999, a meeting was held when some of the applications received against the Notification dated 11th November, 1998, were considered and the rest of the applications will be considered in the meeting to be held in the month of July, 1999. Having regard to those submission, I observed that it was unfortunate that applications in lots were considered and permits are being issued in lots. I further observed that the authority must have waited till it had considered all the applications and thereafter, it ought to have had issued permits. However, having regard to the submissions made by the said Secretary, I disposed of the said writ petition by directing the RTA Midnapore, to consider and decide all the remaining applications received by it against the Notification dated 11th November, 1998, as quickly as possible, but not later than 1st August, 1999, and to communicate to each applicant the fate of their applications by 15 days from the date of the decision. Thereafter, by a communication dated 30th July, 1999, the Secretary, RTA, Midnapore, communicated to the petitioner the text of the resolution adopted by the RTA concerned on 22nd July, 1999 in regard to the application of the petitioner. In that, it has been stated that the concerned RTA has considered all the pending applications for issuance of permanent/temporary permits on the route : Haldia to Mechada Railway Station and Mechada to Kukrahati Launch Ghat in terms of this Court's order and discussed the matter in detail and that each and every applicants were issued notices for personal hearing to consider the merits of their cases and who were present were heard by the concerned RTA one by one and then it was resolved that as vacancy did not exit on these routes and that presently there was no public demand for more Buses on the aforesaid routes, all the applications were rejected. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) Sri M.V. Rao, the Chairman of the RTA, Midnapore, has filed an affidavit-in-opposition. In that he has stated that on the basis of the Notification dated 11th November, 1998, the RTA Midnapore, received 117 applications for the routes in question. It was then stated that in the Notification it had been notified that only ten temporary permits would be issued in favour of intending operators. It has, then, been stated that after the Notification, the First Board Meeting was held on 24th November, 1999, and in that it has been decided that ten permits will be issued in favour of applicants who will be successfully selected and, accordingly, ten offer letters were issued in favour of selected persons. It has then been stated that only ten temporary permits were to be issued in terms of the said notification, but offer letters for the permanent stage carriage permits have been issued in favour of ten successful candidates and that though in the notification it had been mentioned for issuance of temporary permits on the route, in question, later on it had been decided that temporary permits cannot be issued to carry the regular passengers and, accordingly, ten permanent stage carriage permits were issued. In that affidavit, the Chairman has stated that he is filing the said affidavit to state the reason why the petitioner's application for grant of permanent stage carriage permits on the routes in question had not been considered before issuance of the permanent stage carriage permits to other ten persons. No such reason however, has been furnished in any part of the said affidavit. It has been stated in the said affidavit that the concerned RTA Board decided that the applications, which are pending after issuance of ten offer letters, would be considered later and for that purpose a second notification was issued on 20th May, 1999 and on the basis thereof the RTA Board concerned has decided to issue nine more permanent permits in favour of the intending operators and, accordingly, further permits have been issued, in favour of the selected persons. He, then, stated in that affidavit that in terms of the order passed by me on 12th July, 1999 the rest of the applications were disposed of at the Board Meeting held on 22nd July, 1999. He, then, stated that at present, there is no vacancy on the basis of the earlier notification and ultimately he has stated that there is no provision in the Act for issuing notification and the said notification was issued only for general information. He then added that if this Court is pleased to hold that before issuance of ten permits to selected persons on the basis of the notification dated 11th November, 1999, the petitioner's application for grant of permit ought to have been taken into consideration by the concerned RTA Board and the same having not done is in violation of principles of natural justice, he may be pardoned for the acts and omissions which were caused by him and which was said to have not been done wilfully and deliverately.

(3.) I was surprised to read this affidavit-in-opposition. The Chairman of the concerned RTA Board supplied no information at all to Court. He acted in a most miserable manner. He did not state the very basic reason for filing the affidavit as has been recorded by him. He did not make any attempt to state why the others were selected and the remaining were rejected. He did not state as to how a person who did not have a vehicle could at all respond to the subject notification, which was issued for grant of temporary permits. I was also surprised that the subject resolutions were not produced along with the affidavit-in-opposition. I had, therefore, to call for the subject resolutions. Looking at the subject resolutions, I could locate the selected candidates. I issued notices to each of these selected candidates with a direction upon them to produce before this Court their applications and other representations, if any, made by them for consideration. Only one of such selected candidates has responded to such notice. He has filed an affidavit from which it appears that at the time when he made the application, he did not have a Bus at all. He was granted the offer letter after the present Secretary had joined or took over his charge and on the basis of such offer letters, he has acquired a Bus subsequent to 12th July, 1999. The additional ground for selecting him, the gentleman has relied on a Doctor's Certificate showing that he is a chronic patient. A young man as the petitioner was and who was fully equipped to serve as he owned a Bus at the relevant time was rejected unceremoniously; but a heart patient having Bus not only applied for grant of a temporary permit, which is not permissible, but was issued an offer letter, so as to issue a permanent permit in his favour after he acquires a Bus. The minutes, which have been issued by the RTA concerned, are much more surprising. It will set out each of them hereinbelow in order to keep the same on record and to demonstrate how capriciously this RTA has acted in dealing with this matter. The first resolution taken on 24th December, 1998, is also follows :- "Resolution-21 : The members of RTA have examined all the applications received in terms of notification No. 2871/MV dated 11.11.98 and after proper verification of the Biodata with other particulars as furnished in the applications and after thorough exchange of views among the members, the following candidates were selected against the route and fleet strength noted hereunder subject to the conditions that the selected candidates should produce their own vehicle not covered by any permit either temporary or permanent in any local or inter-regional route. Also it was decided that if any selected candidate produce his own bus covered by permit his case can not be considered unless he surrender his previous permit. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_63_CALLT2_2000Html1.htm</FRM> Secretary RTA is requested to issue offer letter/permit accordingly.