Back
2014 Supreme(Cal) 413
In the High Court at Calcutta
Joymalya Bagchi, J.
W.P. No. 17732 (W) of 2013
Jakir Hossain
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 18863 (W) of 2013
Jakir Hossain
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 19091 (W) of 2011
Sri Rahul Samanta
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
W.P. No. 17732, 18863 (W) of 2013 and W.P. No. 19091 (W) of 2011
Decided On : 21.07.2014
Mr. Murari Mohan Das, Mr. Debabrata Chakraborti. - for the petitioners in W.P. No. 17732 (W) of 2013 and W.P. No. 18863 (W) of 2013
Mr. Pantu Deb Roy, Mr. Subrata Guha Biswas. - for the State
Mr. Binod Kumar Gupta. - for the respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 in W.P. No. 17732 (W) of 2013 - for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in W.P. No. 18863 (W) of 2013 - for the respondent No. 3 in W.P. No. 19091 (W) of 2011
Mr. Sattwik Bhattacharya. - for the petitioner in W.P. No. 19091 (W) of 2011 & - for the respondent no.8. in W.P. No. 17732 (W) of 2013
Mr. Nurul Islam Khan. - for the Respondent no.9. in W.P. No. 17732 (W) of 2013
The terms of a reciprocal transport agreement executed by the States cannot be altered or interpreted by the transport authorities without the express consent of the contracting parties.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - INTER-STATE PERMITS - RECIPROCAL TRANSPORT AGREEMENT - INTERPRETATION OF TERMS - DISCRETION OF TRANSPORT AUTHORITIES - JUDICIAL REVIEW - ERROR IN FINAL AGREEMENT - MUTUAL CONSENT REQUIRED FOR CHANGES - OPINION OF SIGNATORY TO AGREEMENT - REJECTION OF COUNTER-SIGNATURE APPLICATION - LEGALITY.
Fact of the Case:
Jakir Hossain applied for an inter-state permit for the route 'Gomo-Kolkata' based on a final reciprocal transport agreement between West Bengal and Jharkhand. However, the State Transport Authority (STA) of West Bengal rejected his application, relying on a communication from the Transport Commissioner of Jharkhand indicating that the route in the final agreement should be 'Gama-Kolkata' due to an inadvertent error. Jakir Hossain challenged this decision, arguing that the STA could not alter the terms of the agreement and that the permit should have been countersigned.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the STA was justified in rejecting Jakir Hossain's application for countersignature of his inter-state permit for the route 'Gomo-Kolkata' based on the communication from the Transport Commissioner of Jharkhand. The court found that the discrepancy in the final agreement was an unintentional one arising out of a typographical error and that the route was, in fact, from 'Gama to Kolkata' and not 'Gomo to Kolkata'.
Issues: 1. Whether the STA could alter or interpret the terms of the final reciprocal agreement executed by the States in question. 2. Whether the opinion of the Transport Commissioner of Jharkhand was relevant in determining the true meaning and purport of the terms of the agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The terms of a reciprocal transport agreement executed by the States cannot be altered or interpreted by the transport authorities without the express consent of the contracting parties. 2. The opinion of the Transport Commissioner of Jharkhand, who was a signatory to the agreement on behalf of the State of Jharkhand, was of paramount importance in determining the true meaning and purport of the terms of the agreement.
Final Decision: The court dismissed Jakir Hossain's writ petition challenging the rejection of his application for countersignature of his inter-state permit for the route 'Gomo-Kolkata'. The court directed the STA to keep the application in abeyance awaiting the resolution of the discrepancy in the final agreement by the concerned States through mutual consent.
Joymalya Bagchi, J.
With the consent of the parties, the writ petition being W.P. No. 19091 (W) of 2011 is taken up for hearing by treating it as on the days’ list and the same is also disposed of along with W.P. No. 18863 (W) of 2013 and W.P. No. 17732 (W) of 2013 by a common judgment and order.
Facts giving rise to the aforesaid writ petitions are as follows:
On 04.09.2002 a draft reciprocal transport agreement executed between the State of West Bengal and State of Jharkhand was published in terms of Section 88 sub-section 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 2004. Annexure – “B” to the draft notification provided various routes approved by two Governments. Serial no.25 of Annexure - "B" to the said notification reads as follow:
NEW ROUTE
Annexure – “B”
Sl. No. Name of Route Distance (in km) Total Permit
I II III IV V VI VII
…. …. …. …. …. …. ….
25 Gama to Kolkata via Giridih, G.T. Road, Durgapur (Night Service) 240 165 405 2 2
Pursuant thereto, final reciprocal transport agreement between two States was duly executed and published by contracting States. In the annexure on the final agreement delineating the notified routes item no.23 read as follow:-
23 GOMO-KOLKATA VIA GIRIDIH, G.T. ROAD, DURGAPUR (NIGHT SERVICE) 165 240 405 2 2
Persuant to such reciprocal agreement, stage carriage permits were applied for and granted by the State of Jharkhand in favour of Rahul Samanta and Binod Kumar Jaiswal for the route ‘Gama to Kolkata’. Subsequently, prayers for countersign in such permits were made before S.T.A., West Bengal and it is submitted that such countersignatures have been made.
Jakir Hossain filed writ petition being W.P. No. 17732 (W) of 2013 wherein he, inter alia, prayed that interstate permit granted to Rahul Samanta and Bijoy Kumar Jaiswal for route ‘Gama-Kolkata’ be not countersigned by S.T.A., West Bengal.
However, in 2011 an advertisement was issued by the State Transport Authority, Jharkhand inviting applications for the route ‘Gomo - Kolkata’. Jakir Hossain applied in response to such advertisement and was granted permit by S.T.A., Jharkhand being P.St.S. 103 of 2011 (I/S) for ‘Gomo to Kolkata’. Request was thereafter made to S.T.A., West Bengal to countersign his permit so granted by S.T.A., Jharkhand.
Rahul Samanta in W.P. No. 19091 (W) of 2011, inter alia, praying for a direction that the interstate permit granted to Jakir Hossain for the route ‘Gomo-Kolkata’ be not countersigned by the respondent S.T.A., West Bengal.
Since no steps were being taken, Jakir Hossain filed writ petition before this Court being W.P. No. 1069 of 2011 and by order dated 22.12.2011 S.T.A., West Bengal was directed to take final decision on the countersignature to the said Inter-State permit.
It is apposite to note that Binod Kumar Jaiswal had instituted an earlier writ petition being W.P. No. 21444 (W) of 2011 challenging the grant of Inter-State permit to Jakir Hossain before this Court.
By order dated 02.01.2012 a learned Single Judge of this Court admitted the writ petition and passed orders upon the respondent authorities to personally appear before the Court.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed in W.P. No. 21444 (W) of 2011 dated 02.01.2012 , S.T.A., Jharkhand issued a notice upon Jakir Hossain to show cause why his Inter-State permit be not cancelled. Jakir Hossain challenged such notice by filing a writ petition before Jharkhand High Court.
He also preferred appeal being M.A.T. No. 33 of 2012 against the aforesaid order dated 02.01.2012 passed in W.P. No. 21444 (W) of 2011.
An Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court by order dated 31.01.2012 allowed the appeal and dismissed the writ petition including order dated 02.01.2012 passed therein on the ground that Bijoy Kumar Jaiswal had approached this Court by suppressing the fact, that he had already instituted another writ petition before Jharkhand High Court for the self same relief. By the said order, the Hon’ble Division Bench also directed that all orders passed by the respondent authorities sh
