The Court :- In this writ application the petitioner, an existing operator has sought orders restraining the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, or the Regional Transport Authority, 24 Parganas from issuing permits in the route from Barasat to Dakshin Barasat via Jessore Road; E.M. Bye Pass, Garia, Sonarpur and Baruipur to any private operators. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that there is a Notification No. 1010-WT/3M-154/2004 dated 11.02.2005 whereby a scheme has been formulated under Chapter-VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in favour of the State Transport Undertakings as specified in the said notification namely Calcutta State Transport Corporation, the South Bengal State Transport Corporation, the North Bengal State Transport Corporation, the West Bengal Surface Transport Corporation Ltd., and the Calcutta Tramways Company Ltd.
The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid notification no permit can be granted on the routes covered by the scheme. Only existing operators have been exempted.
The petitioner is an existing operator. No legal right of the petitioner has been infringed. An existing operator, lacks locus standi to question the grant of permits to others. The proposition that an existing operator does not have the locus standi to question the legality of grant of permits to third parties finds, support from various judgements of the Honble Supreme Court as well as this Court and in particular the judgement of the Honble Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg-Vs-Union of India, reported in AIR 1992 SC 443 and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sanjit Chakraborty-Vs- State of West Bengal & Ors, reported in AIR 2007 Cal. 252.
In support of his submission that the petitioner does have locus standi Mr. Deb Roy has referred to an unreported decision of the Division Bench in MAT No. 2719 of 2007 (Pannalal Mukherjee Versus Chandi Das Moitra & Ors). The question of locus standi of an existing operator to challenge illegal grant of permits was not in issue in the aforesaid case. The Division Bench found that, as an existing operator who fell within the purview of the scheme dated 11th February, 2005, impugned in the writ petition, the appellant was an interested party, since the permit granted to the appellant would be declared illegal if the scheme were to be set aside.
A judgement is a precedent for what it decides. An observation made in the particular facts, circumstances of the case, and in the context of an application for addition of party, in an existing writ petition, cannot operate as a precedent for the proposition that existing operators can challenge the legality of grant of permits to third persons. This writ application cannot be entertained.
The writ application is disposed of with the above observations.
Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.