Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dayal Chandra Naskar vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 28 June, 2021
28.06.2021
Court No. 19
Item no.21
CP
WPA 5756 of 2020
with
CAN 2 of 2021
Dayal Chandra Naskar
vs.
State of West Bengal & ors.
(via video conference)
Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee
Mr. Arkadipta Sengupta
....for the petitioner.
Mr. Amal Sen, Ld. A.G.P.
Mr. Sabyasachi Mondal
Mr. Lal Mohan Basu
....for the State.
Mr. Bhaskar Nandi
.....for the private respondents.
Affidavit-in-opposition and affidavit-in-reply
are taken on record.
The writ petition has been filed challenging the
inaction on the part of the respondents in taking any
action in terms of the representation dated June 11,
2020. The petitioner alleged that 14 persons, who are
represented by Mr. Nandi were operating their
vehicles in the route being Hatiara to SDF. The said
route overlapped a distance of 8 kms with the route
in respect of which the petitioner has been given the
route permit to ply the bus services. It has been
categorically mentioned in the said letter that the
erring vehicles, the details of which was provided by
the petitioner should be taken to task by initiation of
appropriate proceedings under the Motor Vehicles
Act and Rules.
Reliance was also placed on a Division Bench
judgment of this court passé in a similar matter.
Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioner has also drawn
the attention of the court to the submissions made
on behalf of the respondents that the said route
permit allegedly given temporarily to those persons
was illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, apart from
being contrary to the Division Bench judgment of this
court.
CAN 2 of 2021 has also been filed for further
reliefs, i.e., injuncting the authorities from allowing
such persons to ply their vehicles in the alleged
route.
Mr. Sen, draws the attention of the court to a
letter written by the Chairman, Regional Transport
Authority, Kolkata to the Secretary, Transport
Department, Government of West Bengal which has
subsequently been filed with the affidavit-in-
opposition, to indicate before the court that the
authorities upon being aware of the Division Bench
order of this court have taken certain steps in the
matter. He further submits that the allegations
against the respondents do not survive in view of the
fact that all the temporary permits which were given
to the persons allegedly plying their vehicles in a
portion of the route in respect of which the petitioner
has the route permit had either been withdrawn or
they had lost their force. Under such circumstances,
according to Mr. Sen, the grievance of the petitioner
does not survive as the alleged persons who are
represented by Mr. Nandi do not have either
temporary or permanent route permit to ply in the
alleged route in respect of which the petitioner has
been given the permit.
Under such circumstances, taking note of the
submissions of Mr. Sen who has fairly conceded that
the Division Bench judgment should be complied
with, I do not find any reason to keep the writ
petition pending. For the time being the grievance of
the petitioner has taken care of.
The order in this writ petition is limited to the
grievance of the petitioner and this court makes no
observation on whether the transport authority shall
give route permit and other permits to eligible
candidates in accordance with law at a later stage.
The writ petition is disposed of. The connected
pending application is also disposed of. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Parties are to act on the server copy of this
order.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)
