JUDGMENT :

(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.)

1. The petitioner prays for quashing of a resolution dated 27th June, 2018 held at the Board meeting of the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Kolkata. The permit of the petitioner was cancelled by the said decision. The impugned decision was passed by the RTA pursuant to an order of a Coordinate Bench dated 15th May, 2018 by directing the authorities to dispose of the proceedings after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties. The said order was passed in a writ petition filed by the private respondent no. 5.

2. It appears from the submissions made by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner purchased a chassis from the dealer on 25th June, 2011 which was thereafter developed into a fully built-up bus. The petitioner registered the vehicle on 10th September, 2011 upon placing a fully functional bus. The petitioner submitted fees for obtaining the registration certificate and the permit was granted on 14th September, 2011 after completion of all formalities. The private respondent no. 5 filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 4925(W) of 2018 against grant of permit to the petitioner which was disposed of by the order dated 15th May, 2018. Counsel submits that after passing of the impugned order, an application was made by the petitioner under The Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information as to the status of the petitioner’s vehicle which was presented for registration. The Registering Authority replied to the petitioner’s application by forwarding particulars of the vehicles which were available in their database from which would appear that the fully functional bus was presented by the petitioner to the Registering Authority for registration.

3. According to learned counsel appearing for the State, the automobile dealer offered “Tata Diesel Chassis” to the petitioner for a sum of Rs.9,33,945/-but that the proforma invoice shows that the invoices were issued without any commitment of delivery. Counsel submits that the receipt for payment of the vehicle does not show that any bus chassis was handed over to the petitioner on the basis of such receipt. Counsel places emphasis on the fact that the automobile dealer handed over a chassis worth Rs. 10 lacs to the petitioner against a down payment of Rs. 5,000/-which is also not corroborated from any of the documents produced by the petitioner.

4. Upon hearing learned counsel, the primary dispute appears to be that the RTA could not accept that the petitioner could develop a complete “bus body” within 48 hours. The RTA found the chain of events presented by the petitioner to be factually unbelievable. The RTA hence concluded that the petitioner/permit-holder had obtained the permit without fulfilling the condition of presenting a fully built up bus as required in law. The petitioner’s permit was cancelled on this basis.

5. The impugned order dated 27th June, 2018 passed by the RTA cancelling the petitioner’s permit is solely based on the presumption that a “bus body” cannot be built within “24/36/48 hours”. The RTA narrates the sequence of events in brief in that the petitioner purchased the chassis of the vehicle on 12.09.2011 and got the same registered on 14.09.2011. The RTA also recorded that the petitioner applied for and obtained the permit on 14.09.2011 i.e. on the same date of getting the vehicle registered. Although the RTA records the petitioner’s submission that the vehicle has been supplied to him about a month prior to the date of payment, i.e. 12.09.2011 and that the body was built within this time frame, the RTA concludes that it is not possible to build the complete vehicle within 24/36 hours of purchasing the chassis, on two presumptions. First, the petitioner could not submit any documentary evidence and second, by reason of an alleged acceptance on the part of the petitioner that it is impossible to build a body within restricted time frame. There is no indication of any reason an alleg