Wednesday, 13, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Akthar Ali vs The State Of West Bengal And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3752 Cal

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3752 Cal
Judgement Date : 29 June, 2022

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Akthar Ali vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 29 June, 2022
    09
29.06.2022
   TN
                              WPA No.10604 of 2022

                                   Akthar Ali
                                       Vs.
                         The State of West Bengal and others



             Mr. Debabrata Chakraborti,
             Sk. Samim Akhtar
                                                       .... for the petitioner

             Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay,
             Mr. Arka K. Nag
                                                              .... for the State



                     Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that

             there    was    no    Official    Notification    in     terms   of

             Section     74(3)    of   the    Motor   Vehicles       Act,   1988

             (hereinafter referred to as "the 1988 Act") for limiting

             the number of routes in the area-in-question to

             eighteen.      Moreover,    the    yardsticks      of    the   said

             provision of law were not followed in determining the

             number of routes arbitrarily.              That apart, it is

             submitted that the petitioner's auto rickshaw was not

             plying in an unauthorized manner and, as such, there

             was no scope of regularization as contemplated in the

             Notification dated December 10, 2018, issued by the

             Transport Department of the Government of West

             Bengal. It is submitted that the ground of refusal of
                           2




the petitioner's application for renewal of permit in

respect of his auto rickshaw was not one of the

grounds stipulated in Section 81(4), which governs the

renewal of permits, of the 1988 Act.

      Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

authorities places reliance on a Notification dated

March 05, 2004, in which it was specifically stipulated

that the permit limit may be altered in respect of

R.T.A., Howrah or added to subsequently, if

considered necessary by the State Government.

Pursuant thereto, various routes were stipulated for

plying of auto rickshaws in and within Howrah.

Subsequently, by virtue of the Notification dated

December 10, 2018, it is submitted, it was specifically

provided that in view of several auto rickshaws plying

on many routes falling within the jurisdiction of the

concerned Transport Authorities, a chance was being

given to the said unauthorized pliants to have their

auto rickshaws regularized.

Hence, it is submitted by learned counsel for

the respondent-authorities that, by operation of the

Notification dated December 10, 2018, the permit of

the petitioner to ply his auto rickshaw in respect of an

area (as opposed to a "route") became unauthorized.

In view of the petitioner having missed his opportunity

to have his auto rickshaw route regularized, as done

by several other auto rickshaw owners, there was no

scope for renewal of the said license.

It is also argued on behalf of the respondent-

authorities that renewal is akin to the grant of a fresh

permit and, as such, at the time of considering the

request of the petitioner for renewal of his permit, the

respondent-authorities acted well within their

jurisdiction and authority to apply the Notification

dated December 10, 2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply,

contends that in terms of Section 74(2)(i), it is

contemplated that the vehicles shall be used in

specified areas or on route or routes. As such, it is

argued that the distinction sought to be made between

the term "area" and "route" for the contention that the

permit of the petitioner became unauthorized by

virtue of the 2018 Notification, does not hold water.

Learned counsel further controverts the

submission made by the respondent-authorities that

renewal tantamounts to a fresh grant of permit and

submits that by definition it is not so.

Hearing is, thus, concluded.

Judgment is reserved in the matter.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter