CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2021) 12 CAL CK 0042

Rama Prasad Sarkar vs Tate Of West Bengal And Others

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 13 December 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prakash Shrivastava, CJ · Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (P) No. 202 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 364 words

Prakash Shrivastava, CJ

1.

The grievance raised in this petition is that the e-rickshaws are running in the district of Howrah in the State of West Bengal without being registered in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A direction has been sought in the petition to the respondents to implement the notification dated 27th April, 2015 issued by the Department of Transport, Government of West Bengal in Howrah district. The said notification provides for taking necessary action for registration of e-rickshaw.

2.

Having examined the record, we have noticed that the issue is confined to only registration of the e-rickshaws. Vide notification dated 30th August, 2016 issued by the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways, Government of India, operation of e-rickshaws has been exempted from obtaining an e-permit.

3.

Earlier also, a bunch of petitions were filed as Public Interest Litigation including WP No. 3930(W) of 2018 which were disposed of by order dated 17th August, 2018 expressing trust and hope in respect of completion of entire process of registration of all e-rickshaws plying in the State within a time bound period. Review Application was filed in that matter being RVW No. 144 of 2018 wherein by order dated 05th August, 2019, the time limit was extended to register the e-rickshaws up to 31st August, 2019 by further observing that beyond 31st August, 2019, the State shall not permit any unregistered e-rickshaws to ply in the State. It is pointed out that alleging non-compliance of the aforesaid order, CPAN 1193 of 2019 has been filed which is still pending and FMAT 435 of 2000 arising out of the Title Suit No. 27 of 2018 is also pending.

4.

Having regard to the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that once an order has already been passed by this Court, then for the same purpose, repeated PILs need not be entertained. If the petitioner feels that the order, earlier passed by this Court, is not being complied with, he would be at liberty to place the relevant material in this regard in the pending Contempt petition.

5.

Hence, no case is made out to entertain this PIL which is accordingly dismissed.