Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3752 Cal
Judgement Date : 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.)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!