Arun K.Mukhekjea, J. - (1.) This Is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 25th July. 1968 of A. K. Sinha, J. by which his Lordship issued a Writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash a resolution made by the Regional Transport Authority, Bankura, on 27th September, 1965.
(2.) The short facts of the case are as follows: The appellant made an application for the grant of a stage carriage permit on the route from Bankura to Durgapore Railway Station via Beliatore. Sadhan Chandra Dey, Sunil Kumar Banerjee, Lakshmi Rani Dey, Bhola Nath Banerjee and Kalipada Dey, who are the petitioners in the application under Art. 226 of the Constitution, claimed to have jointly applied for the same permit. They say that they were desirous of forming a limited company for the purpose of carrying on a transport business under the name and style M/s. S. C. Dey & Co. (P.) Ltd. The application was made actually under the name and style of M/s. S. C. Dey & Co. (P.) Ltd. In the application, the names of the petitioners were given as "partners" of the said Company. At page 34 of the paperbook, there is a copy of the verification roll which had been filed by the petitioners before the Regional Transport Authority, Bankura, in connection with their application. At the end of the verification roll there is a certificate by the Motor Vehicles Inspector (Non-Technical), Enforcement, Bankura to the following effect:-- "Verified. It is an unregistered Company. Shri Sadhan Ch. Dey, one of the partners, has passenger transport business experience (certificate enclosed). Krishna Trading Company, Bankura will finance the Company to purchase a new bus (certificate enclosed). Shri Sunil Kumar Banerjee, one of the partners possesses Medium Motor Vehicles driving licence. The company does not pay Income-tax. Other points appear to be true. Garage will be inspected later on if the Company gets the route." The Regional Transport Authority, Bankura, considered all the applications for, the permanent stage carriage permit in the aforementioned route at meetings held on 27-9-65 and 29-9-65. The minutes of the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority in connection with the applications which had been filed have been annexed to the petition and are to be found at pages 11 to 13 of the paperbook. It appears that after hearing all the applications and all objections relating thereto, the Regional Transport Authority decided that the stage carriage permit in question would be granted to one Kail Kinkar Kundu. The petitioners, therefore, made an application in this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the aforesaid decision of the Regional Transport Authority. After affidavits had been filed by all parties, Sinha J. heard the application and quashed the decision of the Regional Transport Authority. Kali Kinkar Kundu who had received the permit under the decision of the Regional Transport Authority has now come up on appeal against that order of Sinha, J.
(3.) As far as we can ascertain from the judgment of Sinha J. the main contention of the petitioners before his Lordship was that the Regional Transport Authority had contravened the principles of natural justice in so far as only two members took the final decision without consulting the third member, though the petitioners were heard really by three members. Though Sinha J. did not come to any final decision on this point, it appears from the trend of his Lordship's judgment that his Lordship perhaps thought that there was some slight irregularity in the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority. His Lordship, however, did not like to dispose of the matter on this point. His Lordship preferred to dispose of the application on another short point. Sinha J. analysed the verification report submitted by the Motor Vehicles Inspector and came to the conclusion on the basis of that report that the Regional Transport Authority did not actually apply its mind to the petitioners' case at all. After setting out the verification report in which the Motor Vehicles Inspector had made a remark that the applicant M/s. S. C. Dey & Co. (P) Ltd. had "no experience in passenger transport business. Hence rejected." Sinha J. observed that such an observation could not be made upon the application at all since the applicant was an unregistered Company. Sinha J. actually makes the following comment:-- "If this application is, therefore, rejected on the ground that this S. C. Dey & Co. (P) Ltd. had no experience in passenger transport business, then it can be safely concluded that the R.T.A. did not apply its mind at all. On the face of the report given by the Motor Vehicles Inspector it was impossible to conclude that S. C. Dey & Co. (P) Ltd. had no experience in passenger transport business. In my view, the considerations made by the Regional Transport Authority in rejecting the petitioners' application were totally irrelevant and extraneous and in the facts and circumstances of the case could not arise at all";