Sujit Barman Roy, J. - (1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Hooghly as communicated to the petitioner by the Secretary of the said authority under Memo No. 3142(2)/ M.V. dated 23.11.2000 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for route permit on the grounds mentioned therein. The grounds assigned for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for route permit are that the route is a narrow and congested one. There are huge number of public vehicles plying on this route. More permits would add to the congestion and it will also add to the public inconvenience. Considering the safety of peoples' lives on this route, prayer of the petitioner for permit on the route in question was rejected.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner drew my specific attention to Clause (a) of sub -section (3) of Sec. 74 and proviso to sub -section (2) of Sec. 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Referring to these provisions, learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that no such notification as contemplated under the aforesaid provisions has ever been issued in respect of the route for which the petitioner had prayed for route permit for an auto rickshaw and therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the Regional Transport Authority, Hooghly to allow the prayer of the petitioner and to grant him the permit.
(3.) Subsection (3)(a) of Sec. 74 of the said Act, inter alia, provides that the State Government shall, if so directed by the Central Government, having regard to the number of vehicles, road conditions and other relevant matters, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct a State Transport Authority and a Regional Transport Authority to limit the number of contract carriages generally or of any specified type as may be fixed and specified in the notification, operating on city routes in towns with a population of not less than five lakhs. Likewise, the first proviso to sub -section (2) of Sec. 80 thereof provides that a Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub -section (1) of Sec. 66 may summarily refuse the application if the grant of any permit in accordance with the application would have the effect of increasing the number of stage carriages as fixed and specified in a notification in the Official Gazette under Clause (a) of subsection (3) of Sec. 71 or of contract carriages as fixed and specified in a notification in the Official Gazette under Clause (a) of sub -section (3) of Sec. 74. From the aforesaid provisions it is apparent that these provisions with respect to contract carriages are applicable to routes falling within city areas having a population of not less than five lakhs. It is not the case of the petitioner that the route in respect of which he had asked for contract carriage permit falls within any such city having a population of not less than five lakhs. Therefore, the grounds agitated before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the strength of aforesaid provisions of law are apparently not available to him.;