Calcutta High Court
Ram Pujan vs State Of West Bengal And Ors on 3 August, 2022
OD-1-3
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
WPO/530/2022
IA No. GA/1/2022, GA/2/2022
RAM PUJAN
VS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
AND
WPO/531/2022
IA NO: GA/1/2022, GA/2/2022
SHEO PUJAN
VS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
AND
WPO/532/2022
IA No. GA/1/2022, GA/2/2022
SHASHI PUJAN
VS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
Date : August 3, 2022.
Appearance:
Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, Adv.
Mr. D. Chakraborti, Adv.
Sk. Samim Akhter, Adv.
Mr. Dilip Kumar Samanta, Adv.
Mr. Biswapriya Samanta, Adv.
Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arkadipta Sengupta, Adv.
Mr. Amal Kr. Sen, Adv.
Mr. Lal Mohan Basu, Adv.
The Court: These applications have been filed for addition of the
applicants as party respondents in the writ petition. The writ petition
was filed for a direction on the State Transport Authority to issue a
countersigned letter renewing the permit of the petitioner by the
Jharkhand State Transport Authority to ply in a certain route. The
applicants pray to be added as parties on the contention that the
route of the petitioner has a common alignment of 135 kms with the
route used by the applicants to ply their vehicles.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicants dispute the
legality of the permit issued by the Jharkhand STA as being violative
of section 88 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides for
validation of permits for use outside the region in which the permits
are granted. Counsel further submit that the applicants are directly
affected by the petitioner plying its vehicles on the concerned route.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner opposes the
applications for impleadment on the ground that the starting times of
the journeys of the petitioner and the applicants are different and that
the applicants have come at a belated stage as the permit was granted
to the petitioner in 2006. Counsel also relies on a judgment of a
learned Judge, as his Lordship then was, dated 8.12.2009 passed in
W.P. No. 903 of 2009 (Ram Pujan vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.).
Counsel further places a judgment by another learned Judge, as his
Lordship then was, dated 3.02.2012 in W.P. No. 19510(W) of 2011
where the same issue was considered and the Court came to a similar
finding. A challenge to the judgment dated 3.02.2012 was dismissed
for default on 12.06.2014.
The present applications are for addition of parties simpliciter.
The only question which the Court must therefore consider is whether
the applicants are necessary or proper parties and whether effective
adjudication of the issues in the writ petition can be made in the
absence of the applicants. Although counsel have argued on the
factual aspects of the matter, namely, whether the routes coincide and
other areas of potential conflict, the only issue is whether the
applicants have established a right to be heard in the writ petition.
A four-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Udit Narain Singh
Malpaharia vs. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar; AIR 1963
SC 786 explained the concept of a necessary and proper party to mean
all persons who are directly affected by an act or a proceeding. The
Supreme Court summarised thus: in relation to a writ of certiorari, not
only the authority whose order is sought to be quashed but all parties
in whose favour the said order is issued may be categorised as
necessary parties. Under Order I Rule 9 of The Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, a necessary party is a person ought to have been
joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree can be
passed. A proper party is one whose presence would enable the court
to completely and effectively adjudicate upon all the matters in
dispute in the suit though he need not be a person in favour or
against who the decree is to be made.
The facts urged on behalf of the parties indicate that the
competing routes indeed coincide for a stretch of 135 kms
approximately. This fact is substantiated from the documents on
record. Hence, the permit granted in favour of the petitioner has
admittedly resulted in a substantial stretch of the route being used by
both the petitioner and the applicants as operators of their respective
vehicles. There is little doubt therefore that the applicants are
impacted by the grant of permit to the petitioner and accordingly by
the relief prayed for in the writ petition.
The decisions shown to the Court further assist the applicants
in their case for impleadment. In a full-Bench decision of this Court in
Prabhat Pan vs. The State of West Bengal, AIR 2015 Cal 112 (FB), it
was held that if there is a complaint made against a grant of permit
said to be in derogation of the statutory provisions, the facts
complained of can be subjected to judicial review. The Court was also
of the view that a challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution can
be maintained even at the instance of an existing operator against a
new operator if the complainant can demonstrate a legal right in his
favour. In the present case, the applicants allege that the permit was
granted in violation of section 88(6) of the Act. In Antonio S.C. Pereira
vs. Ricardina Noronha; (2006) 7 SCC 740 the Supreme Court held that
the principle of natural justice would call for hearing a third party
even if it is not explicitly provided in a statute.
With regard to the opposition to the applicants being added as
parties it may be stated that the judgment passed by a learned Judge
of this Court, as his Lordship then was, on 08.12.2009 in W.P. No.
903 of 2009 only considered the illegality of the West Bengal State
Transport Authority in relying on a 2004 Agreement and ignoring a
2006 Reciprocal Agreement between West Bengal and Jharkhand. The
learned Judge did not have the occasion to consider the dispute which
is now sought to be raised by the applicants in inviting the Court to
adjudicate on the legality of the Notification and permit of the STA,
Jharkhand. The next judgment dated 03.02.2012 passed in W.P. No.
19510(W) of 2011 by another learned Judge also did not adjudicate on
the issue which is now being raised by the applicants. The judgment
merely quoted the operative part of the earlier decision and held
accordingly on the finding that the issues raised before the latter
Court had been settled by the earlier decision. This Court hence
cannot come to a finding that the two judgments can be treated as
having authoritative value since the challenge from the later judgment
dated 3.02.2012 was dismissed for default.
Several issues have been raised by the applicants in the
application for impleadment which require adjudication. In
applications of this nature, the Court does not decide on the merits of
the dispute but merely permits parties to be added without who an
effective adjudication cannot be made. If the applicants are not
allowed to be added as parties, the question with regard to the permit
granted to the petitioner or the Notification being invalid under the
1988 Act will remain unsettled. Besides, as held in the decisions
referred to above, an existing operator can raise an objection if the
grant is alleged to have been made against the statutory provisions.
Most important, the routes of the writ petitioner and the applicants
coincide and align for a substantial length and the applicants are
therefore affected parties who have a right to be heard and contest the
writ petition.
GA 1 of 2022 and GA 2 of 2022 in WPO 530 of 2022, GA 1 and
GA 2 of WPO 531 of 2022 and GA 1 and GA 2 of WPO 532 of 2022 are
accordingly allowed and disposed of. The applicants shall be added as
party respondents to the abovementioned writ petitions and are also
permitted to contest the same.
Writ petitions shall be amended as directed. Parties shall be at
liberty to mention the writ petitions for listing.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties after fulfillment of the requisite formalities.
(MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.)
