The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for an opportunity of being heard prior to the rejection of a permit renewal application, as stipulated in Section 81(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The judgment also emphasizes the authority of the State Government to notify specific demarcated routes for plying of auto-rickshaws.

JUDGMENT

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - The petitioner was plying his auto-rickshaw in the Howrah and Bally Municipal areas on a permanent contract carriage permit which was renewed on December 1, 2016 up to November 30, 2021, for the last time by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Howrah.

2. When the petitioner applied for renewal and deposited the requisite fees on November 8, 2021, such renewal was not granted, on which the petitioner, thorough an advocate, sent a Demand Justice Notice to the RTA on May 5, 2022 to which a reply was given by the Authority, declining to renew the permit of the petitioner since the petitioner did not take opportunity of the regularization process which was given pursuant to Notifications dated March 5, 2004 and December 10, 2018 issued by the Transport Department, Government of West Bengal.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1988 Act') provides for renewal of permits. It is argued that a permit renewal can be rejected only on the grounds as specified in sub-section (4) of Section 81. However, in the present case, though no such ground was applicable, yet, the petitioner's renewal application was rejected arbitrarily.

4. The RTA also cited certain Notifications and stated that the Transport Department had considered it necessary in the public interest to direct the RTA, Howrah to limit the number of auto-rickshaws operating in different city routes, in the towns within the jurisdiction of the Howrah Municipal Corporation and Bally Municipality in the District of Howrah.

5. Eighteen (18) routes were accordingly notified, thereby limiting the maximum number of auto-rickshaws permits that can be granted.

6. It is contended by the petitioner that such limitation of the route was also arbitrary and de hors the law. It is submitted that Section 74(3)(a) of the 1988 Act provides that the State Government shall, if so directed by the Central Government, having regard to the number of vehicles, road conditions and other relevant matters, by Notification in the Official Gazette, direct a State Transport Department to limit the number of contract carriages.

7. Section 74(3)(b) provides that where the number of contract carriages are fixed under Clause (a), the RTA was, in considering an application for the grant of permit in respect of any such contract carriage, have regard to the matters as stipulated thereunder. The several yardsticks stipulated thereunder were adhered to while considering the petitioner's application, it is submitted.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the Notification dated December 10, 2018 specifically stipulates that in view of the several auto-rickshaws plying on many routes, a chance was being given to the unauthorized operators to have their autorickshaws regularized.

9. It is submitted that, vide Notification dated March 5, 2004 and that dated December 10, 2018, several routes were notified. As such, the concept of granting permits for particular 'areas' was done away with and specific 'routes' were demarcated.

10. It is submitted that despite having such opportunity, which was availed of by many other operators, the petitioner did not take any step for regularization of his auto-rickshaw, which carried on plying areawise and had been rendered unauthorized by virtue of the Notifications mentioned above.

11. A perusal of the 1988 Act indicates that Section 81 thereof deals with duration and renewal of permits. In sub-section (4) thereof it is stated that the RTA or the STA, as the case may be, may reject an application for the renewal of a permit on one or more of the grounds given therein. One of the grounds is that 'the applicant had been punished twice or more for any of the following offences within twelve months reckoned from fifteen days prior to the date of consideration of the application committed as a result of the operation of a stage carriag