24.04.2025 Court No. 25 S.G. (p.a)

WPA 21822 of 2024 Kingshuk Kar Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sankar Nath Mukherjee, Mr. Niraj Gupta, Mr. Manisha Paswan, … for the Petitioner.

Mr. Barun Kumar Samanta … for the added respondents. Mr. Pantu Deb Roy, ld. A.G.P., Mr. Pannalal Bandopadhyay …for the State

1) The question determinable in this writ petition is whether the respondent authorities have acted just legal and proper, in issuing the vacancy notice dated July 19, 2024, thereby declaring 12 vacancies, for the route “Nayabad Bus Terminus to Kolkata”, on which the writ petitioner used to ply his vehicle, on the strength of a permit, but has remained non operational, for a considerable period of time. It is also under scrutiny of this court if the respondent authorities have acted just, legal and proper, by allowing the applications for issuance of permit of the appellant/private respondents and granting them offer letters, pursuant to their applications in response to the vacancy notice dated July 19, 2024.

2) The writ petitioners permit is No 002/Nayabad to Kolkata Station/New-/2011, which has expired on July 6, 2016. Thereafter, on March

4, 2024 the writ petitioner has stated to have submitted an application for renewal of the permit, with the statutory fees. Allegedly during pendency of such application filed by the writ petitioner for renewal of his permit, the impugned notification was published on July 19, 2024 declaring 12 vacancies over the said route and inviting applications for issuance of permit over there.

3) Mr Mukherjee learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the act of the respondent authority of issuance of vacancy notification dated July 19, 2024 is not only based on erroneous assumption of actual facts and data, but also is illegal and non- maintainable in the eye of law. With reference to the documents annexed with the writ petition Mr Mukherjee has submitted that previous to the notice as stated above, another notice was published by the respondent authority on March 13, 2024 thereby declaring only 1 vacancy over the said route. According to the petitioner this time the respondent authorities did not commit any mistake in assessing the actual vacancy position over the route insofar as there were other permit holders including the petitioner over there, though have not been operating. He says that the petitioner has never surrendered his permit. Therefore, according to the statutory provision the petitioner shall be eligible for renewal thereof at any point of time, after payment of the statutory fees, if not within the time stipulated in the law for renewal of permit. It is stated further that on the date of issuance of the notification impugned, as mentioned above, 3 permits over the said route had remained valid (till 2028) and the petitioner‟s application for renewal of permit was pending consideration of the respondent authorities. Allegedly, the Regional Transport Authority, Kolkata Region as published the vacancy notice dated July 19, 2024 without taking into consideration all these facts. Therefore, according to the petitioner, neither the notice dated July 19, 2024 can sustained in the eyes of law nor the follow-up actions undertaken by the said respondent authority pursuant to the said notice, thereby selecting the intending operators and granting them offer letters, for plying their vehicles, on the said route.

4) The impugned vacancy notice has been challenged for the reason that it has not been widely published through website publication, as is required in terms of this Court‟s order dated September 21, 2023, in an appeal, No. FMA 1311 of 2022 [Nand Kishore Shaw &

Others vs State of West Bengal & Another].

5) Mr. Mukherjee has submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances as above, issuance of offer letters has amounted to enhancing the fleet strength of the said route which is not permissible under section 71(3)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He seeks appro