Back
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND TAPAN KUMAR DUTT, JJ.
Mobesher Hossain Mondal and Ors.
versus
Sekhar Chatterjee and Ors.
MAT No. 4065 of 2005
Decided on : 26 -6 -2007.
BUS PERMIT - NON-DISCLOSURE OF PERMITS HELD - NOT A GROUND TO REJECT APPLICATION - COURT CAN MOULD RELIEF - RIVAL OPERATORS HAVE NO LOCUS STANDI TO OBJECT:
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a rival operator, challenged the grant of a new bus permit to the private respondent on the ground that the respondent did not disclose the number of permits he held in his application form. The RTA cancelled the offer letter issued to the respondent, but granted him liberty to apply afresh. The respondent did so, and the RTA issued a fresh offer letter. The appellant challenged the validity of the fresh offer letter and the grant of the permit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the non-disclosure of the number of permits held by the respondent was not a ground to reject the application, as it was not mandatory for the applicant to disclose such information. The court also held that the RTA had the power to mould the relief in the facts and circumstances of the case, and that the appellant, as a rival operator, had no locus standi to object to the grant of the permit.
Issues: 1. Whether the non-disclosure of the number of permits held by the respondent was a ground to reject the application? 2. Whether the RTA had the power to mould the relief in the facts and circumstances of the case? 3. Whether the appellant, as a rival operator, had locus standi to object to the grant of the permit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the non-disclosure of the number of permits held by the respondent was not a ground to reject the application, as it was not mandatory for the applicant to disclose such information. 2. The court also held that the RTA had the power to mould the relief in the facts and circumstances of the case, and that the appellant, as a rival operator, had no locus standi to object to the grant of the permit.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal.
2. The facts of those writ petitions briefly are as follows :
The present appellant filed the writ petition challenging the resolution dated 7th July, 2005 in connection with an application filed by the private respondent No. 4 in Form No. 1 along with the prescribed fees. In connection to the said application the Authority issued an offer letter. The writ petitioner/appellant herein challenged the validity of the said other offer letter issued by the Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Burdwan vide Memo No. 5038(131)/MV, dated 25th July, 2005.
3. In the other writ petition the private respondent No. 4 and the writ petitioner/appellant herein in respect of W.P. No. 15787 (W) of 2005 challenged the gross inaction on the part of the Authorities to issue permits in terms of the offer letter dated 25th July, 2005 despite the compliance of necessary formalities thereof.
4. The Hon'ble First Court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein is not maintainable on the ground that the writ petitioner/appellant had no locus standi to oppose the grant of new permit being an existing operator.
5. The Hon'ble First Court further held that Form No.1 is only a procedural matter and it cannot have any bearing even when the non-disclosure of the number of permits enjoyed by the private respondent were not disclosed by the private respondent No. 4 being the writ petition in W.P. No. 15787 (W) of 2005 and the same can be a ground to reject the application.
6. According to the Hon'ble First Court, such non-disclosure is only to be treated as a procedural criteria and it cannot encroach upon the substantive right of the writ petitioner being W.P. No. 15787(W) of 2005 in this matter and, therefore, His Lordship directed to issue the permit in favour of the private respondent No. 4/writ petitioner in W.P. No. 15787(W) of 2005.
7. His Lordship on such ground also set aside the decision taken on 7th July, 2005 by the Regional Transport Authority, Burdwan (hereinafter referred to as "the RTA") for cancelling the earlier order dated 28th March, 2005 and further a direction was given that a fresh offer letter on the basis of application with prescribed fee should be deemed as pre-date consideration for the purpose of regularization of the defect.
8. It is the case of the writ petitioner/appellant herein that non-furnishing of the particulars in Form No. 1 is not a contract finding in view of the specific provisions of Rule 114 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules"). The Authorities had no other option but to reject the application for permit if the applicant fails to furnish the papers and documents which have not been asked to furnish along with the application.
9. It is further submitted that the Form of application for permanent stage carriage permits is Form No. 1 under Rule 123 of the said Rules and the statement relating to the particulars of stage carriage and contract carriage is required to be given in order to complete the Form and in this case the statement was given by private respondent No. 4/writ petitioner in W.P. No. 15787 (W) of 2005 that he is not holding any permit, which according to the Learned Advocate appearing in support of this Appeal, is absolutely false because admittedly on the date of filing of the said application, he was holding other permits.
10. He further submitted that there is no restriction of holding any number of permits as per the statute but that does not give any applicant a right to make a false statement at the time of filing the application. Therefore, he submitted that it also cannot be a procedural
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
