HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

WP(C)No.129 of 2023

Kanu Lal Roy and Others

……….Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Tripura and Others

……….Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Adv.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. D. Bhattacharya, G.A.

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

Order

13.03.2023

Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel appearing for

the petitioners as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. appearing for the

respondents.

2.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioners in this instant

petition are all permit holders under the Motor Vehicles Act issued by the

competent authority to run their vehicles in a particular road i.e. from

Radhanagar Motorstand to Kalkalia via Bamutia route, Radhanagar

Motorstand to Taltala via Bamutia route and Radhanagar Motorstand to

Bamutia via Gadhigram. According to the petitioner, in para-5 of this instant

petition the other auto-rickshaws were given permits by the Transport

Department to ply vehicles on the Bamutia to Shalbagan via Nashingar rout,

Narshingar to Lambuchara via Durgabari route and Kalibazar to Mohanpur

route.

Page 2 of 2

3.

The petitioner has given a notice to the competent authority

informing that the present petitioners are not allowed to run vehicles on that

particular route as mentioned above.

4.

During the course of submission Mr. Roy Barman, learned

senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has referred to the reply of the

Joint Transport Commissioner, Agartala, Tripura dated 25.01.2023 which

reads as under :

“1. The route permit of 47(forty seven) nos of auto riskshaws

mentioned in your notice para no.3 have been thoroughly

checked and verified in VAHAN 4.0 Portal and none of them

are accurate; that is, none of them are given permit to ply on

the three routes mentioned in your notice.

2. However, all the auto rickshaws were under observation

during the past few weeks whether they were plying on

regular basis in other routes where they are not permitted.

Here it is found that there were some auto rickshaws plying in

other routes not permitted but it is found that these auto

rickshaws has done the act as per decision of meeting held

with local authorities. This is however, not at par with MV Act,

1989 and hence they have been asked to apply to the

Chairman, State Transport Authority for change of route in

permit.”

5.

Having heard the counsel for the parties and scrutinized the

records this court is of the considered opinion that according to the

communication dated 25.01.2023 of the Joint Transport Commissioner, the

said Commissioner shall take final decision and action shall be taken in

accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

In terms of the above, the present petition is disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

Sabyasachi B