Under a Reciprocal Transport Agreement, the petitioner was entitled to two trips on each day and for that purpose to have one more vehicle covered by the same permit so that each one of the vehicles may make a single trip from one end of the Route to the other.

A. M. BHATTACHARJEE, J.

( 1 ) THE Court : A Supplementary Reciprocal Transport Agreement was entered into by and between the State of West Bengal and the State of Orissa in accordance with the provisions of S. 63 (3b) of the preceding Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in view of the contiguity of the two States and for the purpose of development of inter-State traffic and the same, being Notification No. 10709-WT dated 17/09/1986, was published in the Calcutta Gazette, Extraordinary, dated 25/10/1986. It has not been, as it cannot be, disputed that the said Reciprocal Agreement, though made under the provisions of the preceding Act of 1939, is still validly operative and shall be deemed to have been made under the corresponding provision of S. 88 of the present Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, in view of S. 217 thereof. Both u/s. 88 (6) of the present Act of 1988, as was u/s. 63 (3b) of the preceding Act of 1939, "the State Transport Authority of the State and the Regional Transport Authority concerned shall give effect to it", any contrary provisions in the Act notwithstanding.

( 2 ) UNDER the said Agreement, the Route Jajpur to Kharagpur has been extended up to Calcutta and though only one permit has been provided for, the number of trips provided are nevertheless two.

( 3 ) THE Petitioner had one permit for the original Route Jajpur-Kharagpur before extention and has still now only one permit for the Route after extension to Calcutta. He cannot, or for the matter of that, no one can, have more than one permit, that being the number fixed for the Route under the Agreement. But, as already noted, the Agreement nevertheless authorises one permit-holder to have two trips. Two trips would obviously mean two trips on the same day, as otherwise the second trip on the next or some other day would become a single trip on that day.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted, and that has not been disputed by the Respondents and their learned counsel, that in view of the long distance between Jajpur to Calcutta, a second trip on the same day, is a sheer impossibility. The learned Counsel has accordingly urged that since the petitioner, under the terms of the Reciprocal Agreement, is entitled to two trips and since two trips on the same day by the same Vehicle is absolutely impossible, the petitioner must be allowed to use another vehicle which may make the other trip from the other end of the Route.

( 5 ) MR. Das, the learned Counsel, for the respondents, has frankly conceded that under the Reciprocal Agreement, the petitioner, though entitled to one permit, is nevertheless entitled to make two trips a day and that if two trips a day are not at all possible by one vehicle, the petitioner's prayer for allowing him to use another vehicle deserves serious consideration to enable him, and also the public at large, to have the benefit of two trips for which the Reciprocal Agreement specifically provide. But Mr. Das has expressed his doubt as to whether, the number of permit sanctioned being one only, two vehicles can be allowed to be covered by one permit.

( 6 ) MR. De, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that though under the law, a motor vehicle must have a permit, there is nothing in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 or any other law to indicate that one permit can relate to one vehicle only and cannot cover two or more vehicles. Mr. De has produced before me copies of a number of Permits through a Supplementary Affidavit, covering more than one vehicle at the same time. Mr. Das has considered those documents and even after taking time to obtain instructions, has not been able to dispute the same or to come out with a counter.

( 7 ) IN Para 12 of the writ petition, the petitioner has asserted that the State Transport Authority of Orissa is allowing the permit-holder selected by them for the Route under the Reciprocal Agreement to give "two single trips from two ends" and this averment has not also been disputed by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document