11.03.2025 Court No. 25 S.G. (p.a)

WPA 28407 of 2024 Inzamamul Haqu -vs-

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

WITH WPA 28500 of 2024 Ashim Karmakar -vs-

State of W.B.& Ors.

With WPA 28553 of 2024 Kashinath Mondal -vs-

State of West Bengal & Ors.

With WPA 28557 of 2024 Rash Behari Mondal -vs-

State of W.B. & Ors.

With WPA 28560 of 2024 Rash Behari Mondal -vs-

State of W.B. & Ors Mr. Shaktipada Jana ….for the petitioner.

Mr.A.K.Sen, Ld. AGP Ms. Ashima Das (Sil)

…for the State (WPA 28407 of 2024)

Mr.A.K.Sen, Ld. AGP Mr. Lal Mohan Basu ….for the State. (WPA 28500 of 2024)

Mr. Pantu Deb Roy, Ld. AGP Mr. S.G.Biswas …for the State(WPA 28553 of 2024)

Mr. Pantu Deb Roy, Ld. AGP Mr. Pannalal Bandopadhyay …for the State (WPA 28557 of 2024)

Mr. Somnath Ganguli, Ld. AGP Ms. Kalpita Paul …for the State (WPA 28560 of 2024)

Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree …for the STA Jharkhand

1) The writ petitions as above are taken up together for adjudication and disposal by dint of this common order.

2) The two States, West Bengal and Jharkhand, who are covered by the Reciprocal Transport Agreement dated 29th March, 2004, have not been able to mutually agree as regards the alignment for the route from „Berhampur to Deoghar‟, as mentioned in Annexure-A of the said Reciprocal Transport Agreement. Hence, the time table granted to the petitioners by the STA, West Bengal, prescribing a bus stop at the place namely “Basukinath”, on the said route and prescribing for the petitioner‟s vehicles to stop there for 3 minutes on up journey and for 10 minutes on down journey, has not been countersigned by the STA Jharkhand.

3) The petitioners are aggrieved for the same and have filed the present writ petitions.

4) Mr. Jana for the writ petitioners have contended that the inaction of Jharkhand authorities are only unreasonable and rather unduly motivated. He says that “Basukinath” is a point on the route itself and by halting at “Basukinath”, the petitioners would not be violating the permit conditions in any way. Also, that the permit granting authority has allowed the petitioners to halt at “Basukinath”, as mentioned in the time table granted by them. Hence, there would not be any just and proper reason for which the reciprocating State may decline to counter sign the same. He says that many other buses on the route have already been permitted to operate touching the “Basukinath” bus stop and restraining the petitioners in any manner, whatsoever would amount to discriminating them from the others similarly placed, they being the valid permit holders to operate on the said route. Mr. Jana has relied on the instance of the other permit holder, similarly circumstanced with the present petitioners though, having been subjected to differential and favourable treatment, than the present petitioners. He insists that the respondent STA Jharkhand should immediately be directed to take appropriate steps in order to counter sign the permit and timetable of the petitioners.

5) A report, in terms of the Court‟s order, has been submitted today by the STA Jharkhand, which is taken on record. It has been represented by Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree, learned counsel, who appears on virtual mode. According to the said report and submission of the learned advocate, the STA Jharkhand has acted only in terms of the said Reciprocal Transport Agreement, in order to decline to accept “Basukinath” as a bus stop over the said route. She has stated that the route as per the Reciprocal Transport Agreement dated 29th March, 2004, on which the petitioners operate, is from Berhampore to Deoghar via Nalhati, Rampurhat, Dumka. Hence, since “Basukinath” has not been mentioned in the said agreement as a stop on the route, no approval or permission can be granted to the petitioners to stop over there, or else that would amount to violation of the terms of agreement itself.

6) In these matters the State has been represented by Mr. Sen, Mr. Deb Roy and Mr. Ganguli. Mr. Sen would refer to Clause 8(F) of the said agreement, to submit that in ca