Judgment:
ORDER
SHEET SHEET NO.1 WP No.54 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF:MALATI MAITY Versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE Date :
26. h February, 2013.
For Petitioner :Mr.M.M.Das, Advocate with Mr.Debabrata Chakrabarti, Advocate.
For State-Respondents :Mr.Pantu Deb Roy, Advocate with Mr.Paritosh Sinha, Advocate.
The Court:-The writ petitioner has applied for an inter state stage carriage permit in the route between Kolkata and Puri as it is her case that an existing permit holder in the said route, Hijli Co-operative Transport Society LTD.has remained in operative on the route since the year 1976 and is not plying any vehicle.
The application of the petitioner, however, was rejected on the date hearing took place being 20th January, 2012 in her absence.
It is not in dispute that no notice was sent to her.
It has been recorded in the said decision, a copy of which has been made annexure ‘P-5’ to the writ petition, that the envelope sent to the writ petitioner had been returned with the marking ‘not claimed’.
But I do not find any fault with the decision of the authorities in proceeding with consideration of the application of the petitioner on that day as it is normal practice to treat service in such circumstances as proper service.
Mr.Deb Roy, learned Counsel for the State also submitted that no formal vacancy has been declared in the same route.
In the event however an operator is not plying in an interstate route for more than 30 yeaRs.then it would be expected that the concerned Transport authority shall cancel the permit and declare vacancy.
I have not been apprised as to whether in this case the original permit holder has remained non-functional for such a long period of time or not.
It would be for the Transport authority to make an investigation in that regard and if it is found that the said permit is lying unutilised for such a long period of time, then upon giving the permit holder opportunity of hearing, the permit may be cancelled.
The petitioner shall be entitled to apply afresh for the same route in such a situation and if the original permit of the said permit holder has already lapsed, then the petitioner’s application shall be reconsidered along with other applicants for the same route.
This exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of fresh application by the petitioner.
In the event, however, the authorities choose to decide on the eligibility of the respective candidates on the basis of seniority in filing of applications, then the petitioner’s application shall have priority vis-a-vis the date the same was originally filed.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terMs.Since this writ petition is being disposed of without calling for any affidavit, allegations made in the writ petition shall be deemed not to have been admitted.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.) nM/S.A.R.(C.R.)