Compliance with statutory provisions and unreasonable delay in challenging administrative actions.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners are bus operators on various routes between Purnea and Kishengunge. The said routes pass both within the jurisdiction of the States of Bihar and West Bengal. The present challenge has been preferred against a draft Notification dated May 16, 2014 and a final Reciprocal Transport Agreement dated February 22, 2016, both published in the Kolkata Gazette by the Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Government of West Bengal.

2. The petitioners’ primary contention is that the said draft agreement, which ripened into the final Reciprocal Transport Agreement, are violative of the provisions of Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, “the 1988 Act”). In respect of the locus standi of the petitioners to file the writ petition, the petitioners place reliance on a Special Bench judgment of this Court in Prabhat Pan and others Vs. The State of West Bengal and others, reported at AIR 2015 Cal 112, wherein it was held that the existing operator has a right to raise objection against the illegal, arbitrary grant of permit by the Transport Authority, more so, in respect of grants of permit which are affected by colourable exercise of power or otherwise violative of Article 14, of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further cites a Constitutional Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Tilokchand and Motichand and others Vs. H.B. Munshi and another, reported at (1969) 1 SCC 110, which was rendered in the context of Article 32 of the Constitution, for the proposition that if the fundamental right of the petitioner, as guaranteed in the Constitution of India, is violated by not rendering equal protection of law, a writ petition is maintainable. It is argued that the same principle applies to Article 226 of the Constitution as well, in respect of the High Courts.

4. As regards the objection as to delay raised by the respondents, the petitioner places reliance on Delhi Administration and others Vs. Madan Lal Nangia and others [(2003) 10 SCC 321] in support of the proposition that the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply in writ proceedings.

5. It is submitted that Section 88(7) of the 1988 Act, which was apparently relied on by the two States concerned in introducing 24 Inter-State Bus Routes alleging concurrence, confers no independent authority for introduction of inter-state routes without having any final agreement for such routes. As such, the initial action of both the states introducing 24 inter-state bus routes on the strength of concurrence under Section 88(7) is contended to be not in consonance with law and to vitiate all subsequent actions, including the final agreement, which are non est in the law and are liable to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel cites, in support of such proposition, the judgments of the Supreme Court in Badrinath Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others [(2000) 8 SCC 395], Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and others Vs. Ananta Saha and others [(2011) 5 SCC 142] and State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others [(2011) 14 SCC 770]. Learned counsel for the petitioners further cites the judgment of State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others [(2011) 14 SCC 770], where it was held that Law is an endless process of testing and retesting, as said by Justice Cardozo in his conclusion of the Judicial Process, ending in a constant rejection of the dross and retention of whatever is pure and sound.

7. On the facts, the petitioners contend that in the 1988 Transport Agreement, the inter-state route Purnea to Kishengung had been introduced with allotment of 11 permits in favour of Bihar and no permit in favour of West Bengal. The same had been introduced on the ground that both the terminal point and starting point lie in the State of Bihar with coverage of 17 kilometers in the State of West Bengal, having corridor facility of over 16 kilometers for the operators of Bihar in terms of the Proviso to