Nadia District Bus Owners'' Association vs R.T.A. Nadia

Susanta Chatterji, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by Nadia District Bus Owners'' Association and seven others being members of the Association have prayed inter alia for a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to forbear from giving any effect or further effect to the permanent permit granted to the Respondent No. 4 in the route of Krishnanagar to Ranaghat via Shantipur (Route No. 17) and for other consequential reliefs on the ground that the impugned grant of permanent permit to the Respondent No. 4 in the said route is in utter violation of the provisions of Sections 47 and 57 of Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 57 of the Rules. It is placed on record that the Petitioner No. 1 is a registered Association and the Petitioner No. 2 is the President and the Petitioner No. 3 is the Secretary. Other Petitioners are the owners of the Stage Carriages and they are plying their vehicles under different permanent permits in the route of Krishnanagar to Ranaghat via Shantipur being Route No. 17 and also in the route Krishnanagar to Kalnaghat via Shantipur being Route No. 18. It is placed on record that so far as the Route No. 17 is concerned, 12 Stage Carriages under 12 permanent permits are plying with 4 trips each per vehicle and the total number of trips thus for all the vehicles is 48. So far as the Route No. 18 is concerned, 4 vehicles are plying and the total number of trips of all the vehicles is 24. Furthermore, part of the Route No. 18, i.e. from Krishnanagar to Shantipur being common with the part of Route No. 17 is covered by all the 12 (twelve) buses with 4 trips each. It is alleged that because of plying of so many trips in the aforesaid Route Nos. 17 and 18, the need of the travelling public in the aforesaid 2 (two) routes are more than satisfied and there is no further need at all for any additional vacancy either in the Route No. 17 or in the Route No. 18. There is a grievance that by misinterpreting the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court made in the case of Bengal Bus Syndicate v. State of West Bengal and Ors. the permanent permits have been granted in favour of the Respondent No. 4. The Petitioners are alleged to have obtained certified copy of the writ petition moved by the Bengal Bus Syndicate before the Hon''ble Supreme Court as well as copies of the orders passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on the said application. There is no scope for grant of permanent permit to the Respondent No. 4. According to the Petitioner, the Hon''ble Supreme Court never passed any order directing that all temporary permits granted throughout West Bengal shall have to be converted into permanent permits without complying with the provisions of Sections 47(1) and 57 of the said Act and Rules made thereunder. It is pointed out that the Hon''ble Supreme Court recorded the concessions made by the State of West Bengal to the effect that the State was prepared to convert temporary permits into permanent on conditions. It is also challenged that the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Bengal Bus Syndicate does not apply to all the temporary permits even granted in the case of temporary needs u/s 62 of the said Act by all the Regional Transport Authorities throughout the West Bengal should be converted into permanent permits even though the operator in question was not a party to the said proceedings before the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

Stating all the facts in details and elaborating all the points as indicated above, the Petitioners, have come to this Court seeking reliefs as indicated above.

Mr. Samaresh Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners, has mainly argued that the paramount consideration for declaration of a new vacancy in a particular route and a grant of permanent permit being the need of the travelling public, it has to be considered whether there is any vacancy, if any, route in question as to whether any permanent permit should be granted in accordance with law. There must be compliance of Sections 47 and 57 of Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 57 of Rules framed thereunder. He has highlighted that, in any event, there should be publication of the notice inviting applications both in the Notice Board of the Respondent No. 1 as well as in newspaper of standing in the region to enable the existing operators in the route to file their objection, if any, in compliance with the provisions of Section 57(3) of the Act and Rule 57(B) of the said Rules, but the same not having been done, the impugned grant of permanent permit to the Respondent No. 4 is liable to be quashed. He has laid much emphasis upon the grant of permanent permit to the Respondent No. 4 as mala fide and under colourable exercise of power and for extraneous reasons. He has drawn the attention of the Court that the grant of temporary permits to the Respondent No. 4 on a number of occasions in respect of Vehicle No. WGE 1178 having been made u/s 62 of the said Act cannot override the provisions of Sections 47 and 57 of the Act, in case there is requirement of granting permanent permit in the route in question.

The writ petition is seriously contested by the Respondent No. 4 and an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed denying all the allegations of the writ Petitioners. It is asserted that the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court as made in the case of Bengal Bus Syndicate v. State of West Bengal is very much applicable to the facts of the present case. He has denied that the temporary permit was granted as a stop-gap measure as alleged or at all. The Respondent No. 4 has challenged the locus standi of the writ Petitioner as regards the grant of permanent permit to the Respondent No. 4. It is disclosed, inter alia, that the grant of permanent permit made in favour of the Respondent No. 4 would not inevitably lead to an increase in the sanctioned strength of the route. On the contrary, it is stated that by the grant of permanent permit, the strength would not increase and even if the strength is increased, it would be in the interest of the travelling public and the rival operations cannot have any say in respect of increase in the strength of buses on the route.

Mr. Kasi Kanta Moitra, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent No. 4, has mainly argued that regard being had to the facts of the case, the R.T.A. has granted permanent permit to the Respondent No. 4 and the same cannot be challenged by the present Petitioner by filing the present misconceived writ petition. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in a judgment delivered on December 10, 1987, observing, inter alia:

Further question is what further should be passed. We are involved with the question of public interest, the sufferings of the general public. Any one having a little experience and going around the areas outside Calcutta would experience the sufferings of the public because of the inadequate number of buses. The different R.T.As. have allowed the state of affairs to continue. Sometimes, fire is added to fuel by the operators or from the Association coming to this Court and getting interim orders.

Mr. Moitra has developed his argument that the resolutions adopted in the meeting of the Respondent No. 1 are bona fide and justified and that the grant of permanent permit in favour of the Respondent No. 4 does not suffer from any inherent defect. According to the observations made in the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the Respondent No. 4 is entitled to get the permanent permit on the route in question. Since the Respondent No. 4 is a member of Bengal Bus Syndicate, there is no bar and/or impediment to grant the permanent permit in place of temporary permit which was successively granted to the Respondent No. 4 on the route in question by the Regional Transport Authority, Nadia, since June 1987.

Mr. Manick Chandra Das, learned Advocate for the R.T.A., has however submitted that the resolutions have been made to grant the permanent permit to the Respondent No. 4 as it was represented that, in terms of the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the temporary permit granted to the Respondent No. 4 can be converted to permanent permit.

Having heard the learned lawyers of the respective parties and on perusal of the materials on record, this Court is of the view that for any grant of permanent permit there should be strict compliance with the provisions of Sections 47 and 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Hon''ble Supreme Court at various points of time as also this Court deprecated the grant of temporary permits successively. It was observed that when there was a need, there should be grant of permanent permits in accordance with law. The grant of successive temporary permits and to convert the temporary permit to permanent permit will open a floodgate of corruption and favouritism. There will be denial of the bona fide Applicants who may apply for grant of permit and the interest of the commuters and other operators will be seriously prejudiced. This Court having gone through the materials in depth, does not find that by referring to any observation in the case of Bengal Bus Syndicate v. State of West Bengal, the Respondent No. 4 can get permanent permit automatically without complying with necessary formalities and in deviation of the provisions of Section 47 and 57 of the Act and Rule 57 of the Rules. For filling up a permanent vacancy and to grant a permanent permit certain prerequisites have got to be complied with by the R.T.A. concerned and by the intending Applicants. In the present case, all the necessary formalities as envisaged in law have not been complied with in granting permanent permit in favour of the Respondent No. 4.

Considering this aspect, the present writ petition is disposed by directing R.T.A. at Nadia to consider afresh as to whether any permanent permit should be granted in favour of the Respondent No. 4 or not by giving an opportunity of hearing to the authorised representative of the Petitioner Association and other Petitioners and the Respondent No. 4 within 2 (two) months from the date of communication of the order by passing a speaking and reasoned order. In the event, it is found that all formalities according to law have not been complied with, steps should be taken to fill up the vacancy by granting permanent permit after publication of the notice and inviting applications. It is, however, made clear that in case the R.T.A. takes steps to grant permanent permit in accordance with law, they will consider the candidature of the Respondent No. 4 along with other candidates, if any, as provided under, the law. It is also made clear that untill the filling up vacancy by grant of permanent permit the running of the vehicle of the Respondent No. 4 as on today will not be disturbed. There will be no order as to costs.