Jayanta Kumar Biswas - (1.) THE Court: - The petitioners in this WP under art. 226 dated July 4, 2012 are seeking the following principal relief: a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent No.2 to take steps on the basis of the legal notice (Annexure - P/2 to this Writ Petition) for cancellation of the illegal permits being being P.St.P. No. 5/07 -08, P.St.P. No. 58/09 -10, P.St.P. No.8/07 -08, P.St.P. No. 43/09 -10, P.St.P. No.39/09 -10 and P.St.P. No. 29/09 -10 forthwith. Case stated in para.2 of the WP is as follows: -
(2.) YOUR petitioners are the holders of the permanent stage carriage permit on the routes Bahutali to Farakka via - Raghunathganj and Raghunathganj to Berhampore via - Moregram (hereinafter referred to as the said routes) respectively issued by respondent No.2. Your petitioners have operating their vehicles in the said route in the interest of the travelling public at large. Copies of the said permanent stage carriage permits are annexed hereto and collectively marked as - P/1. Case stated in para.3 of the WP is as follows: - Your petitioners state that in course of operation of vehicles on the said routes it appears to your petitioners that the respondent No.3 had issued few permanent stage carriage permits being P.St.P. No. 5/07 -08, P.St.P. No. 58/09 -10, P.St.P. No.8/07 -08, P.St.P. No. 43/09 -10, P.St.P. No.39/09 -10 and P.St.P. No. 29/09 -10 having no jurisdiction under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Your petitioners state that the respondent No.2 is the appropriate lawful authority authorized by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for granting permanent stage carriage permits and instead thereof the respondent No.3 issued the above permits in favour of the operators most illegally and arbitrarily and that too without having any jurisdiction under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. It is evident from the case stated in the WP that it is only qua the holders of a few permanent stage carriage permits for the routes mentioned in the permits that the petitioners are questioning the validity of a few permits issued for the same routes by the Regional Transport Authority, Murshidabad to some persons who are not parties to the WP. 3. The question is whether the petitioners are entitled to question the validity of the permits issued by the RTA to some persons for the same routes for which they had been granted permits.
(3.) IN Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 443 the Supreme Court clearly held that no existing operator has a right to question a grant of permit to another operator.;