The central legal point established in the judgment is the adherence to the Motor Vehicle Act, relevant notifications, and the authority's compliance with the legal framework in issuing and cancelling permits.

JUDGMENT

Krishna Rao, J. - This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in WPa No. 12633 of 2021 dt. 09.08.2021 wherein the Hon'ble Single Judge has passed the following order:-

'In my opinion, the order impugned has categorically provided the reasons for cancellation of the permit of the petitioners. Furthermore, the petitioners are not able to indicate to this Court any notification on the basis of which vacancies had been declared for the particular route in question. as such, it appears that the resolution dt. 13.12.2019 wherein fresh offer letters were issued in favour of the writ petitioners were in contravention to the existing law and were not based on any notification that has sought for vacancies to be fulfilled.

In the light of the above discussion there is no requirement for any interference of the order assailed before this Court.'

The appellants have submitted their application for grant of stage carriages permit on the routes 24, 24a, 24B and 24 a/1 before the Regional Transport authority, Kolkata Region sometimes in the month of December 2018/January 2019. On receipt of the application of the appellants, the authorities have issued notices to the appellants to appear before the concern authority for hearing for grant of permit. Even after hearing of the appellants, no order was passed and accordingly, the petitioners have approached before the Hon'ble Single Judge for passing necessary direction upon the authorities for taking decision on the applications submitted by the appellants.

On 18.04.2019 the Regional Transport authority, Kolkata Region had communicated the decision to the appellants by rejecting the application submitted by the appellants on the ground of 'No vacancy'.

Being aggrieved with the order of rejection, the petitioners have preferred writ application before the Hon'ble Single Judge and the said writ petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble Single Judge by passing the following order:

'Having heard the partitas and considering the materials placed, this Court is of the view at this stage that the decision as communicated on 18.04.2019 of the Regional Transport authority, Kolkata Region is cryptic and, in the light of the vacancy position relied upon by the petitioner at paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the exercise to consider grant of permanent carriages permit as applied for requires to be revisited.

accordingly, the communication dt. 18.04.2019 as well as the decision communicated connected to the route in issue dt. 22.02.2019 stands set aside.

Having noticed the submissions as above the matter is remanded now to the Regional Transport authority, Kolkata Region to undertake the procedure as submitted by the Learned aGP keeping in mind paragraph 5 of the petition and heard the parties, in the opinion of the Regional Transport authority, Kolkata Region are necessary to be heard and take a reason decision at its earliest convenient Board Meeting'.

after the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, the request of the petitioners were placed before the Board Meeting held on 13.12.2019 and accordingly, the Board had decided to issue fresh offer of letters in favour of the appellants in route no. 24a/1 and in accordance with the resolution dt. 13.12.2019, the Regional Transport authority, Kolkata Region had issued necessary offer of letters in favour of the appellants for grant of permanent stage carriages permits on Route No. 24a/1 vide Memo dt. 04.02.2020 in favour of the appellants no. 1 and 2 and Memo dt. 27.07.2022 in favour of appellants no. 3, 4 & 5.

Being aggrieved with the permit granted to the appellants, the private respondents have preferred writ applications before the Hon'ble Single Judge and the said writ petition was disposed of on 05.02.2021 wherein the Hon'ble Single Judge has passed by following order:

'after hearing the parties including the Ld. advocate for the State authorities, I find that an opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the petiti