The judgment establishes the principle that the authority's jurisdiction, criteria for assessment, and challenges to jurisdiction must be addressed in a timely and reasonable manner.

JUDGMENT

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - The petitioner has challenged a decision of the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Howrah dated June 29, 2022, whereby the petitioner's application for auto-rickshaw permit on Route AR-3 was rejected. The said decision was taken in terms of an order dated March 11, 2022 passed by a co-ordinate bench in WPA No.9902 of 2019.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the RTA, Howrah acted without authority in passing the order since, vide Gazette Notification dated October 21, 2016, the RTA, Kolkata had been conferred with the power to exercise jurisdiction over the combined areas of Police Commissionerates of Kolkata, Howrah, Barrackpore and Bidhannagar. Moreover, by a notification dated June 7, 2016, the composition RTA was nominated. As per Rule 81(1), read with Rule 83(4), of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the 1989 Rules'), the authority so conferred is valid for a period of three years. Hence it is contended that the designated RTA, Howrah had become defunct on the expiry of three years from the notification dated June 7, 2016.

3. Furthermore, the RTA, Howrah, in the impugned decision, arbitrarily specified March 11, 2022 as a cut-off date for the purpose of ascertaining the financial stability of an applicant in terms of Section 74(3) (b) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

4. The impugned order does not disclose any reason for choosing the said date of order of the coordinate bench as a cut-off date.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Authorities, on the other hand, points out that the writ petitioner has contended in paragraph no.18 of the writ petition that the appointment of the RTA, Howrah had expired long back, prior to the decision being taken on June 29, 2022. As such, the RTA Board did not have any existence in the eye of law at the time of passing the said order.

6. However, it is vociferously submitted that the said contention is not only incorrect but has been affirmed to be true to the petitioner's knowledge. Such conduct, without properly ascertaining the current position of law, ought to be deprecated, it is argued.

7. By placing reliance on a subsequent Notification dated August 17, 2021 issued by the Joint Secretary, Transport Department, Government of West Bengal, it is contended that the tenure of the RTA, Howrah had been extended for a further period of three years as contemplated in Rules 81(1) and 83(4) of the 1989 Rules.

8. It is further contended that the RTA has an administrative authority to stipulate a cut-off date for the purpose of ascertaining the criteria as stipulated in Section 74 for grant of contract carriage permit. In any event, it is argued, an unscrupulous applicant may, immediately prior to applying for an auto-rickshaw permit, deposit lump sum amounts of money in his bank account to establish good financial stability, whereas the same can be manipulated for the purpose of obtaining a permit, even though the applicant may not otherwise have such financial stability. The authorities have to fix up some cut-off date, taken as the date of order of the coordinate Bench in the present case. The said discretion comes within the legitimate domain of administration, it is submitted. Hence, learned counsel argues, there was no illegality in such exercise and, as such, the decision of the authority should not be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. Insofar as the territorial jurisdiction of the RTA, Howrah at the relevant time was concerned, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner himself invited the writ court to pass a direction on the RTA, Howrah to take a decision on the petitioner's application for permit. Thus, the petitioner ought not to be permitted to resile from such position now and claim that the rejection of the petition's application was without jurisdiction.

10. Upon considering the submissions of the parties, the materials-on-record reveal