Back
1998 Supreme(Cal) 62
High Court Of Calcutta
Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee
MILAN KUMAR PURI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
G. A. 97 Of 1996
Decided On : 02/17/1998
ARUN KANTI BERA, S.K.SAMIR AKHTAR
The court held that the STA's rejection of the petitioner's application for permanent permit on the ground of overlapping of notified route is wholly untenable as the notifications dated 14th June, 1989 and 18th September, 1989, permitted grant of permits for routes which cross or overlap the notified route excepting the notified route itself.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - SECTION 80, 104 - PERMANENT STAGE CARRIAGE PERMIT - REJECTION BY STA - GROUNDS - OVERLAPPING OF NOTIFIED ROUTE - VALIDITY - NOTIFICATIONS DATED 14. 6. 1989 AND 18. 9. 1989 - INTERPRETATION - EXTENT OF PERMISSIBLE OVERLAPPING - APPLICABILITY TO TEMPORARY PERMITS GRANTED BY COURT ORDER - SCOPE OF EXCEPTION - APPLICABILITY TO NEW APPLICANTS - SUFFICIENCY OF SERVICES - RELEVANCE - REPEATED REJECTION BY STA ON SAME GROUND DESPITE COURT DIRECTIONS - DIRECTIONS BY COURT TO ISSUE PERMANENT PERMIT - CONTEMPT APPLICATION - DISMISSAL.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner applied for a permanent stage carriage permit on the route Mazna to Calcutta. STA rejected the application on the ground that the alignment of the route coincides mainly with the notified route Calcutta Digha and hence no permit can be granted under section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Petitioner challenged the resolution of STA by filing a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's application for permit falls within the scheme itself as per the notifications dated 14th June, 1989 and 18th September, 1989, which permitted grant of permits for routes which cross or overlap the notified route excepting the notified route itself. The court also held that the STA's rejection of the petitioner's application on the ground of overlapping of notified route is wholly untenable and the petitioner is entitled to ask for a permit in the concerned route even as a new applicant.
Issues: 1. Whether the STA's rejection of the petitioner's application for permanent permit on the ground of overlapping of notified route is valid? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a permanent permit on the concerned route?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the STA's rejection of the petitioner's application on the ground of overlapping of notified route is wholly untenable. The court relied on the notifications dated 14th June, 1989 and 18th September, 1989, which permitted grant of permits for routes which cross or overlap the notified route excepting the notified route itself. The court also held that the petitioner's case for grant of permit falls within the scheme itself. 2. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to a permanent permit on the concerned route as the STA has not assigned any other ground for rejecting the petitioner's application for permit.
Final Decision: The court directed the STA and its authorities to issue permanent permit on the concerned route Calcutta-Mazna in favour of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.
( 1 ) THE Court : In this writ petition the petitioner prays for quashing the resolution of the State Transport Authority, West Bengal deted 17. 5. 94 as communicated to the petitioner by the STA's No. 2597-STA dated 20. 6. 94 which is annexure-2 to the writ petition. By that resolution the STA rejected the application of the petitioner for permanent stage carriage permit on the route Mazna to Calcutta on the ground that the alignment of the said route coincides mainly with the notified route Calcutta Digha and hence no permit can be granted under section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The case has a chequered history. It was as far back as in 1987 that the petitioner applied for grant of permit in the route Mazna to Calcutta and since then he had to repeatedly came up before this court as the STA was not granting him permit on that route. He was however granted temporary permit from time to time and at different times under the orders of this Court on successive occasions. However the thread of the present part of the episode can be traced back to a fresh application of the petitioner for grant of permanent permit in respect of the said route Mazna to Calcutta which was made to the STA on 20. 3. 90. As the application was not being considered by the STA, the petitioner had to file a writ petition in this Court on which a learned single Judge of this court directed the STA to consider the same within a particular time after giving an opportunity of hearing under section 80 M. V. Act, 1988. That application was however subsequently rejected by the STA by its resolution dated 5. 11. 90 on the ground that under section 80 M. V. Act the STA had no jurisdiction to grant such permit. The petitioner then moved a writ petition against the said decision of the STA. The matter then went upto the Division Bench and the Division Bench by the order dated 28. 9. 93 set aside the resolution of the STA dated the 5th November, 1990 and directed the STA to consider the application of the petitioner dated 20. 3. 90 in accordance with section 80 M. V. Act. Pursuant to the said order of the Division Bench the petitioner was heard by the STA on 15. 12. 93 and by a resolution of that date the STA rejected the application of the petitioner for permanent permit on the said route on the ground that the major portion of the route falls within the alignment of the Digha-Calcutta route which is a notified route. The said resolution of the STA was however challenged before this court by the petitioner by another writ petition filed on 6. 4. 94. The matter then again went upto the Division Bench in appeal and the Appeal Court set aside the said resolution dated the 15th December, 1993 and again directed the STA to consider the petitioner's application for permanent permit. Pursuant to that the STA again heard the petitioner and by its resolution dated 17. 5. 94 which is the impugned resolution, rejected the petitioner's application for permanent permit on the said route on the ground that the main alignment of the route coincides mainly with the Calcutta Digha route which is a notified route. This latest resolution of the STA dated 17. 5. 94 rejecting the petitioner's application for permanent permit, which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition is the subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition.
( 2 ) CALCUTTA-DIGHA is indeed a notified route covered by the approved scheme as appearing in the Calcutta Gazette (Extraordinary) notification dated the 15th September, 1988 which is Annexure-F to the application for vacation/modification dated the 12th January, 1996 affirmed by Sri Pallab Kr. Goswami. From the said notification it would appear that the Calcutta-Digha route was notified in favour of the State Transport Corporation to the exclusion of other operators. There was also another notification on the same date regarding an approved scheme notifying Digha-Howrah route in favour of South-Bengal State Transpor
