Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) THE CAN has been filed for restoration of the WP under art. 226. By an order dated April 26, 2012 the WP was dismissed for non -appearance of the petitioners. After considering the case stated in the CAN and hearing Mr. Motilal appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Deb Roy for the State and Mr. Khan for the private respondent, I am of the view that the CAN should be allowed and the WP should be restored to file. Since I have determination to take up the WP for final disposal, I have invited Mr. Motilal, Mr. Deb Roy and Mr. Khan to argue; and they have, accordingly, argued the case.
(2.) THE petitioners are questioning the validity of a Notification No. 2027 -WT/4M 23/95 dated April 9, 2010 (WP p.56) issued by the State Government in exercise of power conferred by s. 74(3)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. By the notification the State Government modified a previous Notification No. 1443 -WT/4M -23/95 dated April 21, 2003 (WP p.50) issued by it. The notification dated April 21, 2003 was issued under s. 74(3)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 pursuant to a direction of the Central Government given by an SO No. 700E dated September 12, 1990. The Central Government directed the State Government to limit the number of autorickshaws operating in various city routes in towns within the jurisdiction of Kolkata Police and Lake Town and Salt Lake police stations. Accordingly, the State Government issued the notification dated April 21, 2003 limiting the number of autorickshaws operating on the routes mentioned in the notification. For routes Fhoolbagan -Salt Lake Tank No. 13 the number was limited to fifty -five and for the route Phoolbagan - Karunamoyee via Salt lake Tank No. 13 the number was limited to thirty.
(3.) THE petitioners other than the first petitioner claim that they have been operating their respective autorickshaws on the routes Phoolbagan -Salt Lake via Salt Lake Tank No. 13. Their further claim is that the first petitioner is a union of autorickshaw operators, and that they are members of the union. Their case is that by the impugned notification dated April 9, 2010 the State Government has wrongfully increased the numbers of autorickshaws operating on the two routes in which they are interested.;