A. Abhishek Reddy, J. – The present writ petitioner is filed for the following reliefs: –

(I) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the rejection order vide Memo No. 645 dated 09.06.2023 of the Office, Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter referred as ‘RTA’), Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga – whereby and whereunder the RTA, Darbhanga has been pleased to reject arbitarily and illegally the application dated 15.05.2023 of the petitioner for issuing special permit of the buses bearing Registration No. BR-06PB-9099 and BR- 06PB-9095 on the objection of the Respondent No. 7 in terms of dues of previous commission on these buses. (Annexure – P/2-Impugned Order/Letter).

(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus for directing upon the respondent authorities to issue the road permit of the vehicles (buses) of the petitioner, which is not being issued by the Respondent No. 3 under the influence/objection of the BSRTC – whereby and whereunder the Respondent No. 3 has rejected the application of the petitioner for issuing the road permit of buses by stating the erroneous reasons during the proceedings without given notice to the petitioner and because of this Petitioner are facing irreparable losses day to day as the burden of the Bank Loan, Taxes and other liability are increasing day by day.”

2. It is a case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has applied for renewal of licence and the authorities have rejected the same on the ground that the petitioner is due an amount of Rs. 6,42,000/- to the BSRTC i.e. Respondent No. 6 and, therefore, the renewal of the licence to the petitioner cannot be granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the said action of the respondents is contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in 1992 1 SCC 168. Further, the learned counsel has stated that that the official respondents are relying on letter no. 9004 dated 06.09.1991 to reject the renewal of the petitioner. Learned counsel has also stated that the said letter no. 9004 dated 06.09.1991 on which reliance has been placed by the official respondents was subject matter of a CWJC No. 3096 of 1996 before this Hon’ble Court and this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 23.08.1996 has set aside the said letter.

3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is specifically stated that the petitioner was due a sum of Rs. 6,42,000/- to the Respondent No. 6. That based on the letter written by Respondent No. 6 BSRTC the authorities have rejected the application of the petitioner for renewal of license. Learned counsel for the respondents has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Admittedly, in the present case the petitioner has applied for renewal of the licence to the authorities concerned and the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure-P/2). A perusal of the impugned order shows that the authorities have rejected the application of the petitioner for renewal of the licence solely on the ground that the petitioner is due a sum Rs. 6,42,000/- to the Respondent No. 6. It is contended that the application of the petitioner for renewal cannot be considered as the petitioner in due some amounts to the Respondent No. 6. Under similar circumstances this Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 23.08.1996 passed in CWJC No. 3096 of 1996, has held as under; –

However, learned Government Pleader No. 9 when questioned, he could not satisfy me whether in view of the Motor Vehicle Act and the Rules made thereunder such direction could have been issued by the State Transport Commissioner to the effect that the petitioner’s application for renewal of the permit shall not be granted or the grant of permit shall be cancelled even if the petitioner is himself not a defaulter but any of his family members is and/or are defaulters in