- (1.) THE petitioner in this WP under art.226 of the Constitution is questioning a decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Burdwan dated August 27, 2012 (WP p.48).
(2.) SOME of the holders of permit plying vehicles on the route concerned were given rotational timetable; and the petitioner one of the holders of permit entitled to ply her vehicle on the route was given a fixed timetable. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner submitted an application requesting the RTA to give her a rotational timetable like the other permit holders. Alleging inaction she moved a WP before this Court. It was disposed of directing the RTA to give a decision. Accordingly, the RTA gave the decision. Mr. Roy appearing for the petitioner submits that written submissions the petitioner wanted to submit were not received by the RTA, and that the submissions sent by post were not considered by the RTA. Mr. Deb Roy appearing for the State submits that since for the same route alignment rotational timetable could not be given to any one, the petitioner had no right to request the RTA to give her a rotational timetable.
(3.) MR . Chattopadhyay appearing for one Debasis Manna, a permit holder, and plying his vehicle on the route according to a rational timetable prays for leave to intervene. He submits that his client wants to contest the WP by filing opposition.;