Samaresh Bhattacharya vs State Of West Bengal And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1785 Cal

5th April,
 2022
 (AK)
 179

                                 W.P.A 5136 of 2022

                              Samaresh Bhattacharya
                                         Vs.
                          State of West Bengal and others


                         Mr. D.K. Samanta
                         Mr. B.P. Samanta
                                                    ...for the petitioner.

                         Mr. Pantu Deb Roy
                         Mr. Anand Farmaria
                                                        ...for the State.



                  The limited grievance of the petitioner is that,

             despite a specific direction of a coordinate Bench of this

             court dated January 14, 2022 and subsequently by the

             concerned District Magistrate and Chairman of Regional

             Transport Authority, Purba Bardhaman dated February

             10, 2022, to act on the petitioner's proposed time-table,

             the respondent authorities have qualified the offer of the

petitioner for running a vehicle on a particular route by

arbitrarily adding an extra rider to the effect that the last

trip of the route shall be run by the petitioner.

It is submitted by learned counsel, by placing

reliance on several unreported judgments of this court, in

particular, the judgments of coordinate Benches of this

court dated September 25, 2014 passed in W.P. 26253(W)

of 2014 and the order dated January 8, 2016 passed in

W.P. 22070(W) of 2015, that the courts had directed in

the said matters that the time table as suggested by the

petitioner be approved; in the event it was seen that the

said time table clashes with the time table of any other

operator or otherwise causes public inconvenience, the

courts held that it would be within the jurisdiction of the

concerned authority to seek alteration of the time table

applying the provisions of Rule 119 of the West Bengal

Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent

authorities submits that the cited judgments as well as

the direction given in this particular case by a previous

coordinate Bench contemplate that the time table has to

be clash-free with other operators.

As such, it was within the jurisdiction of the

respondent authorities to stipulate that the last trip of the

route shall be run by the petitioner, in order to ensure

that there is no clash with the time tables of other

operators.

However, it is evident that as per Item no.6 of the

offer sent in terms of the resolution of the RTA Board

meeting dated September 18, 2021 as annexed at page-58

(Annexure-P6) of the writ petition, production of clash-

free time table duly signed by the applicant for proper

notification by the office intimation to the existing

operators was one of the pre-conditions of issuing the

permit in favour of the petitioner.

Such stipulation takes sufficient care of the

apprehended clash with the time tables of existing

operators who may be running their vehicles already on

the same route.

Hence, stipulation no.10, that is, the mandate that

the last trip of the route shall be run by the petitioner

accordingly, is superfluous and tantamounts to modifying

the offer of the petitioner.

However, needless to say, in the event it is seen that

the petitioner cannot produce a clash-free time table duly

signed by the petitioner for proper notification and/or

that there is any specific valid objection to the time table

suggested by the petitioner, it will be within the domain of

the respondent authorities to seek a modification of the

suggested timings of the petitioner to avoid such clash.

However, as it is, Item no. 6 of the offer dated March

8, 2022 to the petitioner, sufficiently covers the issue and

Item no.10 is superfluous and redundant.

Accordingly, WPA 5136 of 2022 is disposed of by

striking out Item no. 10 of the offer letter dated March 8,

2022, annexed at page-58 (Annexure-P6) of the writ

petition.

The other clauses of the said offer letter shall be

retained as they are.

However, it is made clear that in the event a clash is

actually apprehended between other routes and/or the

time tables of existing operators and that suggested by

the petitioner, it will be within the authority of the

respondents to seek an alteration in the time table from

the petitioner.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat copies of this order, if applied for,

be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite

formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)