Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Debashis Das vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 15 July, 2022
04
15.07.2022
TN
WPA No.15442 of 2022
Debashis Das
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and others
Mr. Sankar Nath Mukherjee,
Sk. Samim Aktar,
Mr. Niraj Gupta
.... for the petitioner
Mr. Amal Kr. Sen,
Mr. Lal Mohan Basu
.... for the State
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
contends that although, pursuant to a previous order of a
coordinate Bench of this court dated March 11, 2022
passed in WPA No.9902 of 2019, the Regional Transport
Authority (RTA), Howrah decided on the petitioner's
application for issuance of permit to ply his auto rickshaw
on a particular route, on the date of the said order as well
as on the date of the impugned decision by the RTA,
Howrah (June 29, 2022), the said RTA did not have
territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.
It is contended that, vide Notification dated October
21, 2016, the jurisdiction in respect of certain matters
concerning the Howrah Municipal area, among others,
had been re-allocated to the Calcutta RTA. However, this
was not within the knowledge of the petitioner at the
2
juncture when the order dated March 11, 2022 was
passed by the coordinate Bench. As such, the same could
not be pointed out to the learned Single Judge. However,
nonetheless, the RTA, Howrah did not have territorial
jurisdiction to pass the impugned order on the relevant
date, that is, on June 29, 2022.
It is further contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that, in the impugned order, the RTA, Howrah
specifically stipulated March 11, 2022, that is, the date of
the order of the coordinate Bench, as the cut-off date for
considering the financial stability of the applicants.
However, there is no reasonable basis whatsoever for
arbitrarily taking the said date as a cut-off date, thereby,
inter alia, precluding the petitioner from getting a chance
to ply his auto-rickshaw on the said route.
It is further contended, by placing reliance on a
Notification dated June 07, 2016, annexed at page-45 of
the writ petition, that the RTA, Howrah had been
conferred authority to take up such matters on June 07,
2016.
However, by virtue of Rule 81(1), read with Rule
83(4) of the West Bengal Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as "the 1989 Rules"), such
authority is conferred for a period of three years. At the
relevant juncture, that is, on June 29, 2022, as such, the
RTA-in-question had lost the authority to decide such
3
matters, having been rendered defunct by operation of
law.
Learned counsel for the respondent-authorities
submits that by virtue of a subsequent Notification dated
August 17, 2021 (a copy of which is handed over in court
and is kept on record), the authority of the concerned
designated person as the RTA, Howrah was extended for a
further period of three years, taking into consideration the
effect of Rules 81 and 83 of the 1989 Rules.
It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the
respondent-authorities that the averment in the above
regard, made in paragraph no.18 of the writ petition, has
been affirmed in the affidavit supporting the writ petition
as true to the petitioner's knowledge, which is an
unfortunate state of affairs. It is submitted that the
petitioner ought to have been careful in making such
submissions before a court of law, that too, describing it
as true to his knowledge.
Learned counsel for the respondent-authorities
next submits that since the petitioner himself submitted
entirely to the jurisdiction of the RTA, Howrah at the
relevant juncture by obtaining an order from this court as
well as waiting for the decision of the said RTA, it does not
lie in the mouth of the writ petitioner to challenge the said
order dated June 29, 2022, passed by the RTA, Howrah
now, after rejection of his application, on the ground of
lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner, it is
contended, took a chance and waited until his application
was rejected before preferring the present challenge, inter
alia, on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, which should
be deprecated.
Hearing is, thus, concluded in the matter.
The matter is reserved for judgment.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
