Kalyani Pal vs The State of West Bengal and Others

Hon''ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas

The petitioner in this WP under art. 226 of the Constitution is questioning a decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Burdwan dated August 27, 2012 (WP p.48). Some of the holders of permit plying vehicles on the route concerned were given rotational timetable; and the petitioner one of the holders of permit entitled to ply her vehicle on the route was given a fixed timetable. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner submitted an application requesting the RTA to give her a rotational timetable like the other permit holders. Alleging inaction she moved a WP before this Court. It was disposed of directing the RTA to give a decision. Accordingly, the RTA gave the decision.

Mr. Roy appearing for the petitioner submits that written submissions the petitioner wanted to submit were not received by the RTA, and that the submissions sent by post were not considered by the RTA.

Mr. Deb Roy appearing for the State submits that since for the same route alignment rotational timetable could not be given to any one, the petitioner had no right to request the RTA to give her a rotational timetable.

Mr. Chattopadhyay appearing for one Debasis Manna, a permit holder, and plying his vehicle on the route according to a rational timetable prays for leave to intervene. He submits that his client wants to contest the WP by filing opposition.

The relevant parts of the impugned decision are quoted below:-

Accordingly, the case is taken up for hearing on this date wherein the petitioner appeared before the RTA Board along with other concerned and their Ld. Advocate and was heard. The Ld. Advocate on behalf of other concerned submit a court order of W.P. No. 10961(W) of 2005(Rameswar Bhattarcharya-VS-State of West Bengal & ors) and raised an objection that there is no provision of rotational time table and individual time table is to be fixed to avoid any clash in between the time tables of two vehicles.

The RTA Board carefully perused the case record and made it clear to the petitioner and other concerned that the prayer is not considered for rotational time-table and request the petitioner to ply her vehicle of existing time table. The petitioner was given an opportunity for revision of her existing time table by a fresh prayer to the Secretary, RTA, Burdwan. Decision will be taken as per the statutory provision of the MV Act & Rules.

It is evident from the decision that the RTA rejected the request on the grounds that a rotational timetable cannot be granted. The RTA ought to have disclosed how rotational timetable was granted to the other operators. There is nothing to show that the petitioner''s written submissions were considered. In my opinion, the RTA gave the decision without due application of mind to the issue.

I am of the view that it will be appropriate to remit the matter to the RTA asking it to decide the petitioner''s request afresh. If rotational timetable is not permissible, then the RTA must disclose why and how rotational timetable has been given to the other operators and why all the other operators should not get timetable of one nature and character. For these reasons, I set aside the impugned decision, allow the WP to this extent and direct the RTA to decide the petitioner''s request for rotational timetable in the light of the foregoing observations, after hearing the operators plying their vehicles according to the alignment of the route in question, within eight weeks from the date this order is served. No costs. Certified xerox.