Dilip Mazumdar vs Bhaben Das and Others

K.N. Saikia, Actg. C.J.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri B.K. Das as well as Shri A.K. Bordoloi, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1. Heard also Shri B.P. Bora, learned Government Advocate, Assam.

The petitioner impugns the judgment and order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 14-6-83 whereby the permit granted to the petitioner by the Regional Transport Authority, Dhubri was set aside and given to the respondent No. 1. In the impugned order, the learned Tribunal observed that after carefully considering the merits of the three appellants there was hardly any scope to interfere with the decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Dhubri in the matter of allotment of permits. However, the Tribunal found that the father and the brother of the petitioner, who was respondent No. 5 before the Tribunal, also had periodic permits in respect of the routes within the district and that they had been plying their buses and that by granting another permit to him the R.T.A. Dhubri had bestowed the favour of the third permit to the same family in preference to more deserving candidates like the appellant Shri Bhaben Das, respondent No. 1, in this petition. Regarding the Respondent No. 1, the Tribunal found that he was a member of the Scheduled Caste community and a driver by profession with a P.S.C. (Heavy Vehicle) Driving Licence No. 1757/G dated 4-11-66. He also got an assurance from the United Bank of India that in case a permit was granted in his favour the Bank would finance him for purchasing a vehicle.

On consideration of the comparative merits we do not find any justification for interfering with the Tribunal''s order. We however feel that the fact that the petitioner''s father and brother already had permits and were plying their vehicles should not have been considered to be sufficient for depriving the petitioner of his permit. Shri Das points out that in Explanation II under Sub-section (1C) of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the purposes of Explanation I, "family" in relation to an individual has been defined to mean the wife or husband, as the case may be, of such individual and the minor children of such individual. Of course, Sub-section (1C) refers to the persons belonging to economically weaker sections of the community. There is no reason why the same interpretation should not be acceptable for the purpose of this Act. We accordingly feel that though on comparative consideration Bhaben Das had a preferential claim over the petitioner yet the petitioner, who had a vehicle, also deserved consideration. He was an unemployed educated youth and had financial capacity to pay for a vehicle and in fact he had a vehicle and plied it for about six months by dint of the same permit. Under the circumstances, we feel that the Regional Transport Authority, Dhubri should consider the petitioner''s case sympathetically if and when a vacancy arises for a Stage Carriage Permit within that region. We hope and trust that the Regional Transport Authority, Dhubri shall be in a position to help the petitioner in his struggle for existence within the four corners of law.

In the result, with the above observations this petition is disposed of. We make no order as to costs.