Jayanti Maji vs State of W.B. and Others

Debasish Kar Gupta, J.—The subject-matter of challenge in this writ application is the resolution dated February 15,2007 adopted in the meeting of the respondent No. 2 rejecting the application of the petitioner dated January 31, 2007 for granting stage carriage permit on the route froin Jalan Complex-II (Howrah) to Rajpur (South 24-Parganas).

This writ application is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties on the basis of the admitted facts.

It is an admitted fact that by virtue of the above resolution the application of the petitioner dated January 31, 2007 for granting stage carriage permit on the route in question was kept pending. The ground for keeping the application undisposed of was the above resolution. In order to decide the point of law involved in this writ application on the basis of the admitted facts, the above resolution being Annexure P-3 of the writ application is quoted below:

Ld. Advocate was present. The proposed route is Jain Complex-II (Howrah) to Rajpur (South 24-Parganas) and passes through the contested areas like Rabindra Sadan, Exide, Bhabanipur, Rash Behari, Deshopriyo Park, Triangular Park, Gariahat, Jodhpur Park, Jadavpur, Garia. After discussion, STA, WB resolved to obtain bus stand report from SP, South 24-Parganas regarding availability of bus stand at both Jalan Complex-II and Rajpur. It is also resolved to seek report from DC (Traffic), Kolkata Police regarding allowing the vehicle to ply through the contested areas like Rabindra Sadan, Exide, Bhabanipur, Rash Behari, Deshopriyo Park, Triangular Park, Gariahat, Jodhpur Park, Jadavpur, Garia. After receipt of the said report, STA will consider the matter.

It appears from the above resolution that the application of the petitioner for granting stage carriage permit was kept pending mainly on the ground of obtaining a report from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kolkata Police (Traffic) to allow the vehicle to ply through the congested areas.

On a number of earlier occasions the writ applications were filed challenging the similar type of resolution or resolutions rejecting the applications for granting stage carriage permit on the ground of plying of the concerned vehicles through the congested areas and on the basis of the decisions of the above writ applications, now it is the settled principles of law that it is not open for the respondent authority to reject the application for granting stage carriage permit on the ground of congestion in the route in absence of any notification published in the Official Gazette in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is not in dispute that the impugned resolution was adopted not on the basis of any gazette notification prohibiting grant of fresh permit on the route in question on the ground of congestion.

In this regard, the relevant portions of the order dated July 15, 2004 passed in the matter of Amarendra Roy v. State of West Bengal and Ors. In re: WP 5938 (W) of 2004 are quoted below:

This Court in several writ applications has passed repeated orders pointing out that mere congestion, vehicular pollution, want of space etc. cannot be a ground for refusal of grant of permit, unless State Government has taken policy decision not to grant permit in a particular route on those grounds and such decision must be reflected by publishing a notification in the Official Gazette. There is no dispute that in this case no such notification has been issued by the State Government prohibiting further grant permit in Burdwan. Moreover, it is rightly pointed out by Mr. Das that in the matter of grant of stage carriage permit the Chairman, of the Municipality has no role to play and as such, the Regional Transport Authority, Burdwan cannot take into consideration any decision or opinion of the local municipality. Thus, I find that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground mentioned in the resolution. I, thus, quash the aforesaid resolution and direct the Regional Transport Authority, Burdwan to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the next meeting of the Board. If the authority is of the view that the petitioner has deficiency in the application, in such a case, his application can be rejected. The decision taken by the authority must be conveyed to the petitioner within a week thereafter.

Therefore, in my opinion, the above application of the petitioner cannot be kept pending on the ground of obtaining report from the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Kolkata Police to allow the vehicle to ply through the congested area. It is not permissible in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

In view of the above, I direct the respondent No. 4 to take a decision with regard to the application of the petitioner dated January 31, 2007 in its next meeting.

The respondent No. 4 is further directed to communicate the above decision to the petitioner within two week from the date of adopting the above resolution.

Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondents, all allegations made in the writ application are treated to be denied by them.

This writ application is thus disposed of. In view of the above discussions, it is a fit case for awarding a cost of Rs. 570 to be paid to the petitioner towards Advocate''s fee by the respondent No. 2. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order be given to the parties, if applied for.

Debasish Kar Gupta, J.