Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Tarak Roy vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 22 August, 2022
32 to 43
22.08.2022
mb
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
W.P.A. No. 17922 of 2022
Tarak Roy
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P.A. No. 17946 of 2022
Prabir Das @ Prabir Kumar Das
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P.A. No. 17948 of 2022
Bijoy Saha
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P.A. No. 17954 of 2022
Sudip Dalal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P.A. No. 17957 of 2022
Pradip Kumar Datta @
Pradip Kumar Dutta
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P.A. No. 17958 of 2022
Bimal Dey
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
2
With
W.P.A. No. 17960 of 2022
Ratan Kumar Kar @
Ratan Kr. Kar
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P.A. No. 17966 of 2022
Mrs. Suprity @ Supriti Nandy
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P.A. No. 17968 of 2022
Dip Narayan Chakraborty
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P.A. No. 17970 of 2022
Gouranga Sen
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P.A. No. 17972 of 2022
Prashanta Dey
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P.A. No. 17975 of 2022
Moumita Chowdhury
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Sankar Paul,
Mr. Tapas Samaddar,
Ms. Tapati Sarkar
...for the petitioners
3
Mr. Amal Kumar Sen,
Mr. Lal Mohan Basu
...for the State in
WPA 17922 /2022
Mr. Pantu Deb Roy,
Mr. Anand Farmania
...for the State in
WPA 17946/2022,
WPA 17970/2022
Mr. Pantu Deb Roy,
Mr. Subrata Guha Biswas
...for the State in
WPA 17948/2022,
WPA 17968/2022
Mr. M. Rahaman,
Mr. Satanu Chakrabarti
...for the State in
WPA17954/2022
Mr. Pantu Deb Roy,
Mr. Pannalal Bandopadhyay
...for the State in
WPA17957/2022
Mr. Amal Kumar Sen,
Mr. Prantik Gorai
...for the State in
WPA17958/2022
Mr. Gousal Alam,
Mr. Abdus Salam
...for the State in
WPA No. 17960/2022
Mr. Srijan Nayak,
Ms. Rituparna Maitra
...for the State in
WPA 17966/2022
Mr. Amal Kumar Sen,
Ms. Ashima Das (Sil)
...for the State in
WPA 17972/2022
Mr. Amal Kumar Sen,
Mr. Benagir Ahmed
...for the State in
WPA 17975/2022
4
Affidavits-of-service filed in Court today in all the
matters be kept on record.
The common issue involved in all these writ
petitions is that the petitioners allegedly acted on offers
given to them for replacement of vehicles either in the
year 2010 or to the year 2011 which, according to the
petitioners, were kept pending inordinately by the
respondent-authorities.
In some of the matters, documents were
subsequently submitted by the petitioners, it is alleged,
and approaches were made, but to no effect. Hence,
the petitioners in all the matters seek action by the
respondent-authorities in consonance with their
representations for the purpose of registering their
respective replaced vehicles.
It may be noted that the concerned vehicle in
W.P.A. No. 17946 of 2022 is a bus, whereas the
vehicles in the other matters are auto-rickshaws.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in
all the matters argue that the authenticity of the initial
communication of offers to the petitioners is disputed.
In W.P.A. No. 17957 of 2022, it is specifically
contended by the respondent-authorities that the
vehicle-in-question is registered in the name of some
other person(s) than the petitioner. It is contended
that in some of the matters, particularly in W.P.A.
17966 of 2022, the authorities had directed the
petitioners to produce a fresh vehicle as the vehicle did
not meet the yardsticks for registration.
It is further contended by the respondents in all
the matters that the claims made by the petitioners in
each of the matters have become stale.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents
cite the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in
Prabhakar vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department
and Another, reported at (2015) 15 SCC 1, in support of
the contention that the doctrines of acquiescence and
laches as well as delay apply in such cases. The
Supreme Court categorically held that no relief should
be granted to the petitioners, who were similarly placed
as the present petitioners, who waited for 11/12 years
for espousing their cases before this Court.
It is argued in unison by the respondents that the
pollution standards have undergone a sea-change in
the meantime, between the year 2010-2011 and the
present.
Hence, the reliefs sought by the petitioners, it is
argued, ought not to be granted at this belated
juncture.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents
also cite the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.C.
Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors., reported at Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 13029 of 1985, where the Supreme
Court specifically mentioned the criteria in respect of
the vehicles, meeting the BS-VI (BS-IV in certain cases
of unsold vehicles) pollution norms. Hence, it is
reiterated by the respondents that the registration
sought by each of the petitioners cannot be granted on
the basis of their obsolete vehicles.
Upon hearing learned counsel appearing for the
parties, it appears from the repeated orders of the
Supreme Court that the respondents are justified in
arguing that the pollution standards have changed
drastically in the meantime, whereas BS-III vehicles
would have sufficed when the alleged offers were
purportedly made, the standards required at present
are much higher, keeping in view the pollution created
by vehicle exhausts and otherwise.
Moreover, the respondents are justified in
contending that the applications of the petitioners have
been made after a considerable delay of 11/12 years.
Although the petitioners in some of the matters argue
that the petitioners had deposited documents
subsequently, in some cases in 2019, such act
simpliciter could not validate the prolonged delay
occasioned by the petitioners in urging the present
prayer.
Hence, even without going into the question of
authenticity of the offers and/or the entitlement in law
by the petitioners otherwise to get such registration,
which is the subject matter of factual dispute, it is
evident, from the materials-on-record and the
judgments cited, that the pollution norms and other
standards and yardsticks for registration have actually
undergone a sea-change from 2010-2011, that is, the
years of the purported offers, and the present date.
There is no sufficient reason to grant the relief
sought by the petitioners at this belated stage on the
basis of 2010-2011 offers, even if such offers had
actually been given.
Accordingly, all the writ petitions, bearing W.P.A.
No. 17922 of 2022, W.P.A. No. 17946 of 2022, W.P.A.
No. 17948 of 2022, W.P.A. No. 17954 of 2022, W.P.A.
No. 17957 of 2022, W.P.A. No. 17958 of 2022, W.P.A.
No. 17960 of 2022, W.P.A. No. 17966 of 2022, W.P.A.
No. 17968 of 2022, W.P.A. No. 17970 of 2022, W.P.A.
No. 17972 of 2022 and W.P.A. No. 17975 of 2022, are
dismissed on contest.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if
applied for, be made available to the parties upon
compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
