AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
70 paragraphs · 583 wordsSl. No.,"Writ Pe(cid:13)(cid:13)on
No.",Applicant,"Date Submission
& Docket No.",Financial status,Order Passed on
01.,"10487(W) of
2015",Aditi Mondal,15.12.2014,3.52 Lakh,10.09.2015
02.,"10489(W) of
2015","Dipa
Chakraborty",15.12.2014,3.19 Lakh,10.09.2015
03.,6364(W) of 2016,Jayanti Ghosh,06.02.2015,3.50 Lakh,12.04.2016
04.,"24696(W) of
2015",Barun Dey,09.02.2015,6.00 Lakh,22.12.2015
05.,6363(W) 2016,"Subhash Ch.
Ghosh",12.02.2015,3.70 Lakh,19.04.2016
06.,,Sudip Kr. Dalal,23.02.2015 (2483),4.51 Lakh,
07.,"24697(W) of
2015",Subhasish Dey,23.02.2015 (2489),4.03 Lakh,22.12.2015
08.,"28127(W) of
2015",Tapan Malakar,23.02.2015 (2494),3.85 Lakh,05.01.2016
09.,,"Ayan Kumar
Dalal",01.12.2015,3.01 Lakh,
10.,2179(W) of 2016,Joydeb Malakar,15.02.2016,8.00 Lakh (FD),11.02.2016
11.,2180(W) of 2016,Parimal Sikdar,16.02.2016,3.09 Lakh,11.02.2016
12.,2181(W) of 2016,"Meenashree
Dutta",16.02.2016,3.32 Lakh,11.02.2016
13.,2178(W) of 2016,Jhuma Das,17.02.2016,3.37 Lakh,11.02.2016
14.,2177(W) of 2016,Pampa Malakar,23.02.2016,3.09 Lakh,11.02.2016
Sl. No.,"Writ Pe(cid:13)(cid:13)on
No.",Applicant,"Date Submission
& Docket No.",Financial status,Order Passed on
01.,"10487(W) of
2015",Aditi Mondal,15.12.2014,3.52 Lakh,10.09.2015
02.,"10489(W) of
2015","Dipa
Chakraborty",15.12.2014,3.19 Lakh,10.09.2015
03.,6364(W) of 2016,Jayanti Ghosh,06.02.2015,3.50 Lakh,12.04.2016
04.,"24696(W) of
2015",Barun Dey,09.02.2015,6.00 Lakh,22.12.2015
05.,6363(W) 2016,"Subhash Ch.
Ghosh",12.02.2015,3.70 Lakh,19.04.2016
06.,,Sudip Kr. Dalal,23.02.2015 (2483),4.51 Lakh,
07.,"24697(W) of
2015",Subhasish Dey,23.02.2015 (2489),4.03 Lakh,22.12.2015
08.,"28127(W) of
2015",Tapan Malakar,23.02.2015 (2494),3.85 Lakh,05.01.2016
09.,,"Ayan Kumar
Dalal",01.12.2015,3.01 Lakh,
10.,2179(W) of 2016,Joydeb Malakar,15.02.2016,8.00 Lakh (FD),11.02.2016
11.,2180(W) of 2016,Parimal Sikdar,16.02.2016,3.09 Lakh,11.02.2016
12.,2181(W) of 2016,"Meenashree
Dutta",16.02.2016,3.32 Lakh,11.02.2016
13.,2178(W) of 2016,Jhuma Das,17.02.2016,3.37 Lakh,11.02.2016
14.,2177(W) of 2016,Pampa Malakar,23.02.2016,3.09 Lakh,11.02.2016
of 70. Regional transport Authority, Kolkata is under obligation to fill up the vacancy amongst the applicants strictly in terms of the provisions laid",,,,,
down under Section 71 (3) (d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The respondent no.2 has not followed the procedure laid down in Section 71(3)(d) of",,,,,
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in deciding to issue offer letters to the applicants as would be appearing in the resolution of the Board Meeting dated on",,,,,
11th July, 2017 (Annexure ‘P-13’ to the writ application), as the respondent no.2 has decided to issue offer letters to the said applicants on the",,,,,
basis of extraneous considerations not prescribed in the statute inasmuch as without considering the financial stability of the respective applicants and,,,,,
the satisfactory performance of the applicants as stage carriage operators in the restricted route.,,,,,
Moreover, so far as the requirement under Section 71 (3) (d) (iii) is concerned, nothing has been prescribed by the State Government which was taken",,,,,
into account by the Regional Transport Authority, Kolkata. Law is settled that any administrative decision should take into consideration all relevant",,,,,
factors. Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of",,,,,
performance are necessarily forbidden. Any departure from the procedure laid down by law should be contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution of,,,,,
India.,,,,,
I am in respectful agreement with the view taken in the judgment Sk. Ali Haq (supra). The resolution impugned in the present writ petition shows that,,,,,
the prescribed criteria were not taken into consideration but on the other hand in deciding the application, the factor that weighed on the mind of the",,,,,
authority is foreign in the statute. Such resolution, being based on an irrelevant criteria and without taking into consideration the relevant criteria, must",,,,,
go and accordingly is set aside. The respondent no. 2 is directed to consider the applications of all the 12 (twelve) applicants including the application,,,,,
of the writ petitioner afresh strictly as per section 71 (3) (d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. With the above direction, the writ application is disposed",,,,,
of. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 are directed to complete the entire exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the,,,,,
order. Urgent certified web site copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.",,,,,