28.03.2025 Court No. 25 D.Hira WPA 6794 of 2025 Atin Chakraborty Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Sanat Kumar Roy, Mr. Baidurya Ghosal. ... for the petitioner Mr. Pantu Deb Roy, ld. A.G.P., Mr. Subrata Guha Biswas.

...for the State

1. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today is taken on record.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the alleged inaction of the respondent authority in not renewing his timetable, on the basis of objection put up by the respondent no. 4.

3. Mr. Sanat Kumar Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner’s permit is valid up to August 24, 2027 and the corresponding provisional timetable was also granted to the petitioner. The said corresponding provisional timetable was extended last up to February 8, 2025.

4. Since thereafter, allegedly the respondents have not extended the timetable for the petitioner on the basis of an objection letter submitted by the respondent no.

4.

5. Mr. Roy, has submitted that in spite of holding a meeting over the issue on March 7, 2025, the respondent Regional Transport Authority, Purba Burdwan has not yet resolved the issue by dint of any order.

6. Mr. Roy, says that the timetable being the essential condition of the permit cannot be withheld, without compliance with the provisions of law.

7. He further submits that the petitioner has submitted a written representation before the Secretary, RTA, Purba Burdwan dated March 13, 2025 expressing his grievance therein but to no avail as yet. The petitioner has sought for that be may be allowed to follow the old timetable, as was granted to him.

8. Mr. Pantu Deb Roy, learned Additional Government Pleader is representing the State on virtual mode in this matter.

9. Mr. Deb Roy, has raised objection as to the contentions of the petitioner that he may be allowed to ply his vehicle in accordance with the old timetable, as according to Mr. Deb Roy, the validity of the timetable has already expired.

10. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the records, it is found that for the permit of the petitioner, which is valid till August 24, 2027, the provisional timetable was issued earlier.

11. Such provisional timetable has expired on February 8, 2025. Since thereafter, there has not been any timetable issued to the petitioner allowing him to ply his vehicle.

12. In the meantime, a letter of objection as to the timetable of the petitioner filed by the respondent no.

4 has intervened.

13. Though, the respondent has heard the parties upon the dispute as raised by dint of the said letter dated November 21, 2024 of the respondent no. 4, no decision has yet been taken by the same as regards the dispute.

14. In the meantime, due to expiry of the timetable and non-renewal thereof, the petitioner is not able to ply his vehicle for which reason he has expressed prejudice and grievance.

15. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case as above, it is found proper that the respondent no. 4 shall immediately take up the representation of the petitioner dated March 13, 2025 and dispose of that, by dint of a reasoned order.

16. In doing so, the said respondent, if so, finds fit and proper and may call for the petitioner and the respondent no. 4, for hearing again and conclude the entire exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of copy of this order.

17. It is further directed that in the meantime the respondent no. 4 shall extend the timetable dated April 8, 2024 of the writ petitioner, which has expired on February 8, 2025 provisionally and subject to the final decision of the said respondent with regard to the petitioner’s representation dated March 13, 2025.

18. Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the petition are deemed to have been denied by the respondents including the private respondents.

19. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition being No WPA 6794 of 2025 is disposed of, along with the