Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S. Driver Conductor Helper ... vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 22 April, 2022
02 22.04.2022
WPA No. 7005 of 2022
M/s. Driver Conductor Helper Transport Co.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and others
Mr. Aashutosh Bhattacharyya
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Pantu Deb Roy,
Mr. Pannalal Bandyopadhyay
...for the State.
Mr. Sattwik Bhattcharyya
... Amicus Curiae
The present challenge has been taken out
against a decision of the State Transport Authority,
West Bengal, refusing the petitioner's application for
renewal of a permit to ply a bus from Nabadwip town
to Barakar, extended from Nabadwip to Krishnanagar
via Asansol, Panagarh, Satgachia, Burdwan vide D-
1720 dated September 22, 2021 and D-184 dated
January 25, 2022 (Permit No. P.St.P.01/1991 (I/R),
valid up to October 8, 2021).
The petitioner has been plying his bus on the
said route for about the last forty years. However, by
the impugned decision, the respondent-Authority
refused further renewal of such permit on the sole
ground that if the proposal for renewal of permit is to
be accepted with time table not in sync with permit
route alignment, the proposal would be
"consideration of renewal of a different permit and not
the proposed one" in accordance with provision of
Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as 'the 1988 Act'), which is
not possible at this stage, keeping it open to consider
the application for renewal if the applicant submits a
"clash-free revised time table in sync with permit
route alignment" and other updated papers and
requisite fees required for such renewal.
The basis of such ground of refusal was the
finding of the Authority that the permit was issued in
accordance with the route alignment but the time
table issued in "reversed" direction "perhaps due to
inadvertence" but that, as a matter of practice, the
time table should be in sync with the route as shown
in the permit.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties,
the following decision is arrived at by the court.
The primary contention of the petitioner, that
the signatory of the forwarding letter of the order was
not authorized to pass the order, is not acceptable.
It is seen from the order itself, a copy of which
is annexed at page 43 of the writ petition, that the
Secretary, State Transport Authority (STA), West
Bengal was the Authority who passed the order,
signed the same and before whom the matter was
heard on March 23, 2022.
The forwarding letter dated April 5, 2022, sent
to the petitioner along with the order, was a mere
instrument of convenience to serve the order and not
the order itself. The mere misstatement in the said
communication regarding the order being passed by
the "undersigned", who was an RTO and Ex-Officio
Assistant Director, STA, West Bengal, is irrelevant,
since it is evident from the order itself that the same
was passed by the Secretary, STA, who is the
appropriate Authority in law having jurisdiction to do
so.
However, the second ground of challenge in
the writ petition is worth consideration on merits. It is
seen from the time-schedule (time table), which was
observed not to be "in sync" with the permit route
alignment, that the same contained a single column
mentioning the stoppages of the vehicle. The left
column thereto indicated the "up departure" and the
right column thereto the "down arrival" timings.
The stoppage mentioned at the top of the
column is Barakar and the last Krishnanagar.
Although the route as mentioned in the permits was
mentioned in reverse order, that I,s Nabadwip town
to Barakar (extended up to Krishnanagar), the order
of consecutive stoppages, even if it seems reverse to
the permit at first blush, in reality, is not so.
In fact, the respective time-schedules of
departure and arrival at the respective stoppages
have both been mentioned. Instead of expending
two columns mentioning the same stoppages in
reverse order, a single column has been used to
mention the stoppages and the respective arrivals
and departures have been mentioned corresponding
to each stoppage in the left and right columns.
It is clearly mentioned in the temporary
permits as well as permanent permit, which have
been granted for so long, that the permit was for the
said route "for one round trip daily". Hence, the route
was not unidirectional but contemplated a circular trip
between Krishnanagar and Barakar. Depicted in
either order, that is, either Barakar or Krishnanagar at
the top, would not change the format of the time-
schedule apropos the stoppages, since the departure
and arrival times for each of the respective
stoppages remain the same topsy turvy.
The judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench cited on
behalf of the respondent-Authorities, rendered in
Bimal Kumar Das Vs. State of West Bengal and
others (AIR 2016 Cal 324) is on a different factual
matrix. In the said case, although not specifically
mentioned, it is evident that the interpretation was
based on the premise that the permit was for a
unidirectional route. Hence, the order in which the
stoppages were mentioned as starting and end
points acquired importance.
The expression "route" was interpreted in the
said decision in such context.
Section 2(38) of the 1988 Act defines "route"
as "a line of travel which specifies the highway which
may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one
terminus and another".
Read in the context of the permit being for a
'round trip', the "line" as mentioned in Section 2(38)
cannot be construed as unidirectional or state but is
circular in nature, having no particular starting point
or end point.
Even mathematically, a 'line' has a single
dimension but not direction. It depicts a distance,
measured in magnitude, and not a 'vector', signifying
any particular direction as well, unless so defined.
Hence, whether Barakar or Krishnagar is mentioned
at the top of the list as a stoppage is totally irrelevant,
since both the up and down departure and arrival
times have been clearly mentioned for the individual
stoppages. The termini between which the vehicle
would ply remains the same both ways but merely
vary in their physical sequence, which has no bearing
on the synchrony between the timetable and the
route, as opposed to the logic of the same not being
"in sync", as given in the impugned order.
An additional determinant in this context is the
fare-table submitted by the petitioner, as annexed at
page 35 of the writ petition. The same depicts the
stoppages in the order as given in the route permit,
that is, Krishnanagar at the top and Barakar at the
bottom, mentioning the distances and fares for the up
trip and the down trip respectively.
As such, there remains no doubt as regards
the time table being in absolute harmony with the
route.
Moreover, the same route and time table have
been renewed by temporary permits for around 40
years and as a permanent permit for a full tenure.
Hence, it would be entirely out of context to suddenly
refuse the same at the point of renewal at this
belated stage.
Section 80(3) of the 1988 Act is not attracted
in the present case, since no variation has been
sought by the petitioner at all. As such, the
impugned order refusing to renew the permanent
permit of the petitioner to ply his vehicle cannot stand
its ground.
Accordingly, WPA No.7005 of 2022 is allowed,
thereby setting aside the order dated April 5, 2022 of
the Secretary, STA, West Bengal in respect of File
No. TPT-20012 (13)/567/2021 - STA SEC - Dept. of
TPT. The respondent no.2 is directed to renew the
permanent permit of the petitioner on the basis of the
existing application, of course, subject to compliance
of all formalities and payment of all requisite fees by
the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, positively
within four (04) weeks from date and to communicate
such decision to the petitioner immediately thereafter.
No order as to costs.
Urgent certified copy, if applied for, be given to
the parties, upon compliance of due formalities.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
