Sri Babul Das vs The State Of Tripura
2021 Latest Caselaw 132 Tri

                             Page 1 of 7




                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                          AGARTALA

                    WP(C) NO.773 OF 2017

Sri Babul Das,
S/O Sri Haripada Das,
South Pulinpur Teliamura,
P.O. Howaibari, P.S. Teliamura,
District-Khowai Tripura.
                                              ........... Petitioner(s)
                    Versus
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by Secretary cum Commissioner,
Department of Transport,
Government of Tripura,
P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex,
Agartala, West Tripura.
2. The Joint Transport Commissioner,
Government of Tripura,
Paribahan Bhavan, Astabal,
P.O. Agartala, P.S. East Agartala,
District-West Tripura.
3. The District Transport Officer,
Government of Tripura,
P.O. & P.S. Teliamura,
District-Khowai.
4. The Officer-in-charge,
Teliamura Police Station,
P.O. & P.S. Teliamura, Khowai Tripura.
                                      ........... Respondent(s)

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH For petitioner(s) : Mr. D. Sarkar, Advocate For respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharya, G.A.

Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order                :     08.02.2021
Whether fit for reporting       :     NO





         J U D G M E N T & O R D E R (O R A L)

Heard Mr. D. Sarkar, learned legal aid counsel

appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharya,

learned G.A. appearing for the State respondents.

2. The facts in brief are that, on the basis of an

advertisement for setting up of Smoke Emission Testing

Centres(SETC for short) in various parts of the State of

Tripura, the petitioner, being one of the applicants, was

selected to open SETC in the name of 'Pushpita Automobile

Emission Testing Centre'(Pushpita A.E.T. Centre for short).

He was issued with the necessary licence by the competent

authority. After obtaining licence, the petitioner installed

machineries and started to issue pollution certificates after

proper verification of the vehicles.

3. The petitioner suddenly had received a show

cause notice dated 11.05.2015(Annexure-4 to the writ

petition), wherein he was asked to show cause as to why

he had issued Pollution Under Control(PUC for short)

certificate in favour of vehicle bearing No.TR01W-1818

(TATA ACE) without testing the said vehicle, when the said

vehicle was found to be in the custody of the Officer-In-

Charge of Teliamura Police Station after meeting an

accident.

4. Having receipt of the said show cause notice

dated 11.05.2015, the petitioner had submitted his reply on

13.05.2015 to the competent authority of the State

respondents, wherein he denied the allegations levelled

against him and stated that the vehicle attended his centre,

being driven by one Sri Pradip Majumder, and after

necessary verification, he issued PUC certificate. At the

point of verification, the petitioner had no knowledge that

the vehicle had met an accident at any point of time nor it

was divulged by said Sri Sri Majumder in that regard.

Further, the said Sri Majumder also had handed over his

mobile number for future contact.

5. The petitioner has brought the registrar

maintained by him in his office and I have gone through the

register, which was duly authorized by the competent

authority of the State respondents, where I find there is an

entry of testing the vehicle and in pursuance of such

testing, the petitioner had issued the certificate in question.

But, after receipt of the said reply, the State respondents

without making any further enquiry had cancelled the

licence of the petitioner by order dated 14.10.2015.

6. After receipt of such cancellation order, the

petitioner had submitted representation dated 15.11.2016

(Annexure 11 to the writ petition), wherein he had stated,

inter alia, that he got stunned about the cancellation of his

licence and he further stated that "I am the helpless victim

in the hand of law and it is also the cruel jest of my lord

with me. Someone has committed the wrong by hook or by

crook and some another is paying for this. I could now

understand the only intention of the owner of the vehicle

was somehow to cancel of my licence and initially he is

succeeded. In the backdrop I urged before you to hold a

proper enquiry and in holding so it will be crystal clear to

you what was the real intention behind the entire episode. I

am a person hand to mouth and prayed before your honour

for reconsideration of the order vide No-F.V-3/JTC/CON/

2013-14/4824-4826, Dated Agartala 14th October-2015 and

after getting the report would be pleased enough to restore

of my licence for smooth running of my business unless I

shall put to die along with my all family inmates."

But, the State respondents did not pay any heed

to it. Hence, this writ petition.

7. Mr. D. Sarkar, learned legal aid counsel

appearing for the petitioner has submitted that after receipt

of the representation, the Licencing Authority had to make

a full-fledged inquiry as to how the incident happened.

From the registrar, which the petitioner used to maintain, it

becomes clear that the petitioner had tested the vehicle on

that date and issued the certificate which was further

verified and authenticated by the concerned State

authority. Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel has further

submitted that non-holding of further inquiry amounts to

violation of the principles of natural justice.

8. On the other hand, Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned

G.A. has submitted that on the basis of a confidential

communication between the Officer-In-Charge of Teliamura

Police Station and the Transport Authority, the licence of

the petitioner was cancelled.

9. In my opinion, this is a clear violation of the

doctrine of fair play. The State respondents i.e. the

Licencing Authority ought not to have proceeded against

the petitioner only on the basis of a confidential

communication between the Licencing Authority and the

Officer-In-Charge of Teliamura Police Station. In my

considered view, the petitioner had been deprived of

defending his case properly in accordance with the

established procedure of law. The confidential

communication had to be brought to the notice of the

petitioner and if a full-fledged inquiry was conducted, then,

the petitioner could appear and defend his case. The way

the Licencing Authority had cancelled the PUC Licence

issued in favour of the petitioner, according to me, is illegal

and arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of natural

justice.

10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated

14.10.2015 cancelling the Licence of the petitioner, is

hereby set aside and quashed.

The State respondent i.e. the Licencing Authority

is directed to immediately restore the Licence of the

petitioner and allow him to run his centre. The order of

restoration of the Licence of the petitioner shall be issued

within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order.

It is made clear that the petitioner in future

should be more cautious about the issuance of certificates

in favour of the vehicles.

11. The instant writ petition is allowed in the above

terms.

12. Lastly, I appreciate the effective assistance

rendered by Mr. D. Sarkar, learned advocate who was

appointed as Legal Aid Counsel.

JUDGE