Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Prabir Kumar Samanta, Sailendra Prasad Talukdar
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Appellant
Versus
KALYAN CHAKRABARTY - Respondent
MAT 1964 Of 2005
Decided On : 09/08/2005
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT - CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT - GRANT OF - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - LIBERAL POLICY OF GRANT OF PERMITS - POWER OF TRANSPORT AUTHORITY TO REFUSE PERMIT - REASONABLENESS OF REFUSAL - CONGESTION OF TRAFFIC - NOTIFICATION DATED 2ND AUGUST, 2004 - APPLICABILITY - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for a permanent offer letter in connection with an Auto Rickshaw permit for a particular route. His application was rejected without assigning any reason. The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, which directed the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) to consider the application on merit. The RTA again rejected the application, but gave the petitioner the option to choose another route. The petitioner challenged this decision in the High Court, which directed the RTA to issue a permanent contract carriage permit within a specified period.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the RTA's refusal to grant the permit was reasonable and justified. The court noted that the RTA had given the petitioner the option to choose another route, which was within the scope of Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court also held that the Notification dated 2nd August, 2004, which limited the number of contract carriages operating on city routes in towns with a population of not less than five lakhs, was applicable to the petitioner's case, even though it was issued after the petitioner had first applied for the permit.
Issues: 1. Whether the RTA's refusal to grant the permit was reasonable and justified? 2. Whether the Notification dated 2nd August, 2004 was applicable to the petitioner's case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The RTA's refusal to grant the permit was reasonable and justified because: - The RTA had given the petitioner the option to choose another route, which was within the scope of Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. - The Notification dated 2nd August, 2004, which limited the number of contract carriages operating on city routes in towns with a population of not less than five lakhs, was applicable to the petitioner's case, even though it was issued after the petitioner had first applied for the permit. 2. The Notification dated 2nd August, 2004 was applicable to the petitioner's case because: - The Notification was issued by the State Government in compliance with a direction from the Central Government. - The Notification was intended to regulate the grant of permits in order to address concerns about congestion, pollution, road conditions, and public conveyance.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the impugned order dated 11th April, 2005 passed by the Learned Single Bench in W. P. No. 19248 (W) of 2001 was set aside.
( 1 ) COMMON points of facts and law being involved in the eight cases as mentioned earlier, by consent of learned Counsel for the parties all those were heard at a time. The same are governed by this common judgment.
( 2 ) IN M. A. T. No. 1961 of 2005, respondent, Sri Kalyan Chakrabarty, as petitioner, filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and the grievances, as ventilated in the said application, may briefly be stated as follows :-He made an application on 14th January, 2000 for grant of permanent offer letter in connection with Auto Rickshaw permit in respect of the route from Chinsurah C. O. M. H. Office to Farm Gate. The said application was rejected without assigning any reason though the present appellants were required to dispose of the application in accordance with law and after giving him an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner then approached this Court by filing an application under Article 226 of the constitution which was disposed of by order dated 5th June, 2000 by issuing a direction upon the Regional Transport Authority to considerthe application on merit within twelve weeks from the date of communication of the order. Petitioner approached the authority concerned but by letter dated 25. 08. 2000, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Hooghly informed that his application was rejected. This Court was approached again and by order dated 27. 11. 2000, this Court while rejecting purported letter dated 25. 08. 2000 directed the authority to reconsider the application. The petitioner was then heard by the Secretary, Regional Transport authority, Hooghly who by letter dated 27. 03. 2001 communicated that the application for grant of permit was again rejected. Petitioner was, however, given a copy of the chart of the routes and was given the choice of selecting one from the same. The order dated 27. 03. 2001 passed by the Secretary, was, thereafter, rejected by Learned Single Bench of this hon'ble Court by order dated 03. 09. 2001. The petitioner approached the authority concerned again and he was heard. The Secretary, Regional transport Authority, Hooghly vide Memo No. 3052 (7)/mv, communicated the resolution dated 05. 10. 2001 and, in fact, the authority stuck to its earlier stand thereby, while rejecting his application for grant of permit, gave option for choosing any other prescribed route.
( 3 ) THE petitioner was, thus, left with no choice but to approach this court again with an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and by the impugned
judgment dated 11. 04. 2005, the Learned Single Bench of this court while disposing of the writ application being W. P. No. 19248 (W) of 2001 directed the authority concerned to issue permanent contract carriage permit within a specified period.
( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 11. 04. 2005, the respondent authorities approached this Court by preferring the instant appeal.
( 5 ) APPELLANT-STATE authorities while praying for setting aside of the impugned judgment dated 11. 04. 2005 took the view that there could be no scope for grant of any further permit in respect of the route for which such permit was sought for and option was extended to choose any other prescribed route.
( 6 ) IT seems to be the further stand of the appellant that in connection with compliance of a judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the Government issued a Notification on 02. 08. 2004 which further stands in the way of granting a route permit in favour of the petitioner.
( 7 ) MR. N. I. Khan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/state authorities submitted that there had been failure on the part of the Learned trial Judge to appreciate the matter in the proper perspective. He contended that a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court by judgment dated 21. 11. 2003 passed in G. A. No. 568 of 2002 (A. P. O. T. No. 83 of 2002) directed the State authorities to form a policy on the basi
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
