AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
Affidavit-of-service filed in Court be taken on record.
Appeal is directed against the order dated July 21, 2026 passed in W.P.A. 16623 of 2026.
By the impugned order, learned Single Judge directed the Regional Transport Authority to formulate a policy where only individual time table of permit holder is exhibited on the vehicle.
Learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, the appellants are not parties to the writ petition. He submits that, a time table was fixed by the Regional Transport Authority on March 6, 2024. Such time table was kept in abeyance. RTA was allowing all bus operators to operate on the basis of the resolution dated September 19, 2023. He submits that, the resolution dated September 19, 2023 should be given effect to. He submits that, his clients are agreeable to the resolution dated September 19, 2023 being given effect to.
Learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, subsequent to the impugned order, RTA implemented the time table dated March 6, 2024. He points out that, the first bus which is scheduled to leave at 3:15 a.m. in the morning is to do the last duty at about 5:55 p.m. which is about 17 hours from the first exist from the bus terminus. He submits that, the entire period of time between the first out of the terminal and the last out of the terminal is about 17 hours which is not in consonance with the resolution dated September 19, 2023 which shall be within 14 hours.
State and the private respondent are represented.
Learned advocate appearing for the private respondent submits that, there is a resolution dated September 19, 2023 which regulates the distribution of the business amongst the bus operators including formulation of the time table. He submits that, his client does not object to a time table being formed in accordance with the resolution dated September 19, 2023. He submits that, the contention that the time table dated March 6, 2024 was kept in abeyance is incorrect. The bus operators were following the time table dated March 6, 2024.
Learned advocate appearing for the private respondent submits that, the appellants complied with the individual time table.
We find from the records as follows:-
Appellants are not a party to the writ petition in which the impugned order dated July 21, 2026 was passed;
The appellants filed a writ petition in which an order was passed with regard to the formation of the time table;
There is a resolution passed by the Regional Transport Authority dated September 19, 2023 which states that, the duty span of a bus will not cross 14 hours in a day amongst others;
There is a time table dated March 6, 2024 which allocates the respective buses time for running of the same.
It appears from the time table dated March 6, 2024 that, the first bus being WB 29A 8506 is scheduled to leave Mecheda in 3:15 a.m. in the morning. The last out from Haldia to Mecheda of the same bus is at 5:55 p.m. in the evening. The span between the first and the last is in excess of 14 hours. The same is therefore, not in accordance with the resolution dated March 19, 2023 which specifies that, the span will not exceed 14 hours.
The time table dated March 6, 2024 is also stated to be a provisional time table. Therefore, the authorities forming the time table was conscious of the fact that, a final time table was required to be made.
Apparently, the authorities started enforcing the time table dated March 6, 2024 pursuant to the order impugned dated July 21, 2026. As noted above, the impugned order dated July 21, 2026 required bus operators to carry individual time table.
In such circumstances, since, the time table dated March 6, 2024 is contrary to the resolution dated September 19, 2023 and since, the appellants before us are required to ply a bus in excess of 14 hours span as recorded in the resolution dated September 19, 2023, we are of the view that, rights of the appellants stand affected.
In such circumstances, we grant leave to the appellants to prefer the appeal.
Since, we dealt with the merits of the matter in the appeal itself, we propose to dispose of the appeal by directing the Regional Transport Authority to revisit time table dated March 6, 2024 strictly in accordance with the resolution dated September 19, 2023.
The Regional Transport Authority will afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants and the private respondent. Regional Transport Authority is at liberty to hear such other parties and consult such documents as it deems necessary. Regional Transport Authority will make and publish a fresh time table within eight (08) weeks from the date of communication of this order.
MAT 1275 of 2026 along with connected applications are disposed of.
I agree.