Back
High Court Of Calcutta
A. N. RAY
GOURANGA BARIK - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Matter . Of 1992
Decided On : 06/11/1993
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - PERMIT GRANTING - TEMPORARY PERMITS - MANDAMUS - GRANT OF - DUTY OF TRANSPORT AUTHORITIES - LIBERALIZED POLICY UNDER SECTION 80 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - CONGESTION OF TRAFFIC - NOT A GROUND FOR REFUSAL OF PERMIT - EXCEPTIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an applicant for a permanent permit to operate a passenger carriage on the Calcutta-Joramandir route, had been granted successive temporary permits by the transport authorities pursuant to court orders, as the authorities had failed to dispose of his application for a permanent permit. The petitioner sought a further interim order for the grant of a temporary permit, and the authorities opposed the grant, arguing that no further interim orders should be passed and that the petitioner should not be allowed to operate on the route without a permanent permit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the transport authorities had a duty to grant permits in ordinary circumstances, and that refusal was an exception. The court noted that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, had liberalized the policy of permit granting, and that congestion of traffic was not a ground for refusal of a permit, unless there was a restriction imposed in accordance with section 71(3)(a) of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the transport authorities had a duty to grant a permit to the petitioner in ordinary circumstances? 2. Whether congestion of traffic was a ground for refusal of a permit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the transport authorities had a duty to grant permits in ordinary circumstances, as per section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court noted that the Act had liberalized the policy of permit granting, and that refusal was an exception. 2. The court held that congestion of traffic was not a ground for refusal of a permit, unless there was a restriction imposed in accordance with section 71(3)(a) of the Act. The court noted that the Act had expressly provided for the limitation of the number of vehicles on a route only by an interaction of two Governments under section 71(3)(a), and that it would be contrary to the object and purpose of the Act to allow a lesser authority to refuse permits on a plea of congestion.
Final Decision: The court directed the transport authorities to grant a temporary permit to the petitioner for a period of 16 weeks from 14th June, 1993, and restrained the authorities from interfering with the petitioner's operation on the Calcutta-Joramandir Route without further leave of the Court. The court also clarified that the authorities were free to dispose of the petitioner's application for a permanent permit in accordance with law.
( 1 ) THOUGH this is an opposed ad-interim stage of the application and affidavits are yet to be filed, tire matter has been argued out at length on the part of the respondent Motor Vehicle Authorities.
( 2 ) THE respondents have contended through the able advocacy of Mr. Seth that, no interim order should be passed at this stage and that the directions granted earlier for issue of temporary permits to the writ petitioner should cease.
( 3 ) A few facts are necessary to appreciate the background in which these submissions were made and pressed.
( 4 ) THE writ petitioner had made an application for grant of a permit on the 1st April 1991 and bad moved the consumer Forum in that regard. From those proceedings, the writ petitioner came up under an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and on the 8th April 1992, Justice N. K. Mitra passed an order, wherein His Lordship gave liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh.
( 5 ) ON the 13th April 1992, the petitioner did so apply afresh. But this time not only for the permanent permit, but a temporary permit was also applied for by the writ petitioner.
( 6 ) IT might be mentioned that, though a permanent permit might be valid for five years, yet a temporary permit for passenger carriage can be issued under the Act for a maximum validity period of four months only.
( 7 ) SINCE the new applications were not disposed of within a period of four weeks, which had been fixed by Justice Mitra for disposal of the application, a proceeding in Contempt was initiated by the petitioner and an order was passed on the 14th July 1992 in effect extending the time for compliance by two weeks.
( 8 ) THERE ended, so speak, the first set of attempts by the petitioner to get a reasoned order upon his application for road permit.
( 9 ) THE second round of battle began with a second writ on which on 24th October 1992, Justice Susanta Chatterji passed an order directing consideration of the representation of the petitioner within three weeks and his Lordship also directed that, in default, the respondent-authority will issue a temporary permit in favour of the writ petitioner.
( 10 ) SUCH temporary permit for the Calcutta-Joramandir Route was issued on the 16th January 1993 and the same was valid till 14th May 1993.
( 11 ) SHOWING diligence and care in the matter, since the application for the main permanent permit made by the writ petitioner was still undisposed of, he made on 13th April, 1993 a second application for a fresh temporary permit.
( 12 ) IT should be noted that a temporary permit cannot be renewed like a permanent permit but that successive fresh temporary permits must be obtained, if the occasion so demands.
( 13 ) THE third set of legal proceedings by the writ petitioner, again primarily intended for a disposal of the petitioner's application for a permanent permit, is the present writ application, upon which on the 14th May 1993, in the presence of the respondents, Justice Kalyanmoy Ganguly passed an order directing a further grant of temporary permit with the validity period till 14th June 1993.
( 14 ) THOUGH 14th June 1993 is soon to come and expire, the petitioner's main application for permanent permit is yet undisposed of.
( 15 ) ON the 1st June. 1993, tire petitioner was therefore, compelled to make yet another application for a temporary permit and a copy of the said application has been filed in Court and directions have been given by me for the same to be kept on the records countersigned by the Court Officer.
( 16 ) THE petitioner has moved for appropriate orders with notice to the respondents and requests for a resolution of the impasse created by the continued inaction of the respondent-authorities. The writ petitioner cannot be expected to file writ after writ and obtain interim order after interim order for grant of temporary permits successively and he wants a decision on his rights, even if the same be at the interim stage.
( 17
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
