M/s. Ujjal Transport Service vs State of West Bengal and Others

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.—The petitioner in this writ petition dated February 15, 2006 is seeking a mandamus restraining the respondents from issuing a permanent stage carriage permit to the fifth respondent, Om Prakash Gupta, for the interstate route Tatanagar-Katras via Chas, Purulia.

Notice inviting application for one permit for the route was published by the STA West Bengal in newspaper on March 25, 2005. In response to one notice seven applications including the applications of the petitioner and the fifth respondent were received. Notice was given to all the applicants to appear before the STA for interview. Only the petitioner and the fifth respondent appeared for interview, as will appear from the information revealed by the broadsheet, a copy whereof has been produced by the STA with its opposition dated April 20, 2006. The fifth respondent having obtained higher marks than the petitioner was selected.

Questioning the selection the petitioner took out this writ petition. Interim order dated February 21, 2006 was made restraining the STA from issuing any offer letter for the route to anyone. The interim order is still in force. Feeling aggrieved by the interim order the fifth respondent preferred an appeal, which was disposed of by an order dated March 29, 2006. Points raised in the appeal were kept open for decision by the single judge. One of the points taken in the appeal was that the writ petition taken out by an unregistered firm would not be maintainable.

The writ petition has argued for final disposal. Case of the petitioner is that its merits as a candidate were not assessed properly and fairly. This seems to be the main case, because in its opposition the STA has stated, in para 4, that the fifth respondent having secured the higher marks was selected. The STA has stated that the petitioner having not submitted any paper showing a ready vehicle did not get any mark out of the six marks which were available under the head.

Case of the STA stated in para 4 of its opposition has been dealt with by the petitioner in para 8 of its reply dated May 12, 2006. The petitioner has not said that the STA has wrongly stated in para 4 of its opposition that paper showing a ready vehicle was not submitted by it. On the contrary, it has made certain circuitous statement. It has said:

........ With reference to para 4 of the said affidavit I specifically deny that the allegation made against us that we did not place any vehicle before the board as because we have already submitted a document before the respondent authority in respect of documents and the receiving Clerk put his signature but how they denied it we could not imagine it. On self same day we placed some documents in respect of another route and the authority selected us as a grantee.....''''

In para 4 of its opposition the STA has further stated that though the petitioner did not produce any ready vehicle and produced paper showing only purchase of a new chassis, it was selected for grant of permit for another interstate route, viz. Tatanagar-Katras. I am told that the route actually is Tatanagar-Manbazar.

The petitioner''s application was not rejected for non-production of paper showing a ready vehicle. As a matter of fact, the application could not be rejected on this ground, unless it was lawfully provided that non�production of paper showing a ready vehicle would be a ground to reject the application. Here the petitioner simply did not get any mark which it could get on production of papers showing a ready vehicle. On the other hand, the fifth respondent produced papers showing his ready vehicle and got three marks out of total six which a candidate could get for a ready vehicle, and this made the whole difference. While out of sixteen, the full marks, the petitioner got only six, the fifth respondent got eight.

These facts are evident from the information revealed by the broadsheet. I am therefore unable to accept the case of the petitioner that its merits were not assessed by the STA properly and fairly. There is absolutely nothing to show that it produced any paper before the STA at the relevant time to show its ready vehicle entitling it to any mark under the head. As I have already said, this aspect has been carefully bypassed by the petitioner in its reply while dealing with the specific case of the STA stated in its opposition.

As to the question of maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of the unregistered firm, Mr. Deb Roy has produced a Division Bench order dated August 19, 2008 made in MAT No. 593 of 2008 (M/s Ujjal Transport Service v. The State of W.B. & Ors.). In view of the order, there is no scope to decide the question in this case.

Mr. Deb Roy has contended that in view of the decision of this Court in Rina Maity & Ors. v. STA, West Bengal & Ors., 2001(2) CLJ 533, the entire selection process is liable to be quashed on the ground that the decision of the STA dated July 26, 2005, annexure R at p.11 of the STA''s opposition, was not communicated to the petitioner, though in view of the provisions of section 80(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the STA was under an obligation to communicate the decision.

I am unable to accept the proposition. The communication part of the decision has nothing to do with the validity of the decision itself. The failure to communicate the decision may be illegal. There is no reason to say that the petitioner was not entitled to know the decision, or that the STA was not under any obligation to communicate the decision. And for failure to perform the obligation an order could be made directing the STA to communicate the decision. But it cannot be said that for the failure the decision itself is liable to be quashed. The decision selecting the fifth respondent can be quashed only if the process of making it is bad; that is to say, if it cannot stand the test of judicial review by the Writ Court. There is no reason to say that the process of its making is bad in law.

For these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order for costs.

Urgent certified xerox of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties within three days from the date of receipt of the file by the section concerned.