The main legal point established in the judgment is that an existing operator has the locus standi to challenge the extension of an offer letter to a rival operator, and the extension of the offer letter beyond the statutory limit is illegal and void.

1. The petitioner claiming himself to be the existing operator of route no. 81 and 81/1 on the strength of a Permanent Stage Carriage Permit challenged the action of the respondent authorities in extending the period of the offer letter issued to the respondent no. 6 beyond the ceiling limit provided under Rule 141 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘said Rules’).

2. Though the averments are made in the writ petition that initially the applications were called for by the Association, the respondent no. 7, but the application filed by the petitioner before the said respondent was not considered and/or processed and it appears that the respondent no. 6, who also filed the application with the Association, was favoured with the offer letter for grant of said permit in the newly notified route i.e. 81/1.

3. To remove any confusion in this regard, previously the permit was issued in respect of a combined route i.e. 81 and 81/1 to various operators and later on the authorities decided to issue the permit in a newly notified route i.e. 81/1 alone and the only applicant, who appears to have filed the application before the authorities, is respondent no. 6. It is unnecessary to go into the details of the facts averred in the instant writ petition, as the point of law, which has been raised, can be conveniently decided on the basis of the facts narrated herein above.

4. A preliminary point is taken by the respondent no. 6 that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition challenging the action of the respondent authorities in extending the period of the offer letter as he is not an existing operator. The respondent authorities have not disputed that the petitioner does not have the Stage Carriage Permit for the combined route i.e. 81 and 81/1. Even the petitioner categorically stated in the writ petition that he is also an operator in the said route and, therefore, the respondent no. 6 is factually incorrect.

5. The argument of the respondent no. 6 is firstly founded on the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court rendered in case Dr. Umakant Saran vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in (1973) 1 SCC 485, wherein it is held that the Mandamus cannot be issued compelling the authorities to perform their duties entrusted in the statute unless the person approaching the court satisfies that it has a legal duty and/or right and such right has been infringed. The learned Advocate for the said respondent further submits that the person, who is not an aggrieved party, cannot maintain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as held in case of D. Nagaraj and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, reported in (1977) 2 SCC 148. The learned Advocate would further submit that the concept of locus standi has advanced in course of time because of the litigation by a public spirited person and in such litigation it would not be necessary that the person must have an interest in the matter, meaning thereby, if a writ petition is filed for Mandamus upon the respondent authorities he must show that he is interested in the matter and placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in case of J. Mohapatra and Co. and another vs. State of Orissa and another, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 103.

6. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that he is an existing operator in the combined route and has challenged the action of the respondent authorities when it exceeds beyond the statutory powers under the said Rules and, therefore, the petitioner has the locus standi to maintain the instant proceeding. He placed reliance upon the Larger Bench judgment of this Court in case of Prabhat Pan and others vs. The State of West Bengal and others, reported in (2015) 2 Calcutta High Court Notes (Cal) 185 and submits that the reference was made on the identical points questioning the locus standi of the existing operator to maintain a writ pet