AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subrata Talukdar, J
Under challenge in this writ petition is the Proceedings of a Joint Video Conference between the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Purba Burdwan and the RTA, Nadia following Rule 103 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 (for short the 1989 Rules) as held on the 10th of December, 2018.
Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are aggrieved by the said Proceedings qua only the application of the Respondent No. 6 for a permanent stage carriage permit on the ground that the impugned Proceedings tantamount to a resolution to allow/grant the permit itself.
Drawing the attention of this Court to Rule 103 of 1989 Rules, Mr. Chatterjee submits that Rule 103 is merely procedural and requires the RTAs involved in respect of which the route alignment falls, only to express concurrence with regard to the ultimate grant of a permit and, in the event there is no concurrence, refer the matter to the State Transport Authority (STA).
Further drawing the attention of this Court to the language of the impugned Proceedings, learned Senior Counsel points out that the issue as underpinned by Rule 103 of the 1989 Rules connected to grant of the permit claimed by the Private Respondent No. 6 has not surfaced at all. On the contrary the two RTAs involved, that is RTA, Purba Burdwan and RTA, Nadia have resolved to grant the permit.
Mr. Chatterjee therefore prays for setting aside the impugned Proceedings followed by Rule 103 of the 1989 Rules. Per contra, Mr. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 6 also draws the attention of this Court to the clear expression used in the impugned Proceedings which stand recorded only as Proceedings of a Joint Video Conference. Mr. Roy submits that the applications were only discussed by the RTAs, Purba Burdwan and Nadia and the expression of unanimity with regard to no objection of both the RTAs to permit the claim by the Private Respondent No. 6 upon following other provisions of the Motor Vehicles Rules and Acts stands recorded. .
Mr. Roy submits and, to the mind of this Court justifiably so, that Rule 103 must be read holistically with other permit granting conditions in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, viz. Sections 69 and 72 thereof. Reliance is placed by learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 on the decision of a Hon'ble Concurrent Bench reported in 2018 (3) CLJ (Cal) 194 In Re: Asim Kumar Ghosh & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal & Others.] at Paragraphs 19, 24 and 25 thereof to emphasize that the impact of Rule 103 is limited to a joint discussion and it will be evident from the impugned Proceedings that it is not in the nature of a permit granting exercise carried out by the RTA concerned in terms of the relevant provisions of the 1988 Act.
Mr. Nayak, learned Counsel for the State-Respondents submits that there is no irregularity in the Proceedings as adopted by the two RTAs and therefore there is no wrong in giving shape to the ultimate decision for grant of the permit in accordance with law.
Both learned State Counsel and learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 question the locus of the petitioners to move this writ petition, a stand which is disputed by Mr. Chatterjee.
Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court expresses its concurrence to the stand taken by learned Counsel for the Private Respondent No. 6 and the State Respondents, that the Proceedings of the Joint Video Conference do not run foul of Rule 103 of the 1989 Rules.
Accordingly, this writ petition is not detained further.
In the backdrop of the above discussion the permit granting authority is permitted to conclude the exercise in accordance with law.
W.P. 15540(W) of 2019 stands disposed of.
Since affidavits are not invited, allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.