DEBASISH KAR GUPTA,J. - (1.) This writ application is directed against a resolution adopted in the meeting of the respondent no.2 on February 21, 2008 rejecting the application of the petitioner dated November 29, 2007 for granting a stage carriage permit (bus) in his favour to ply his vehicle on the route from Amta to Rajarhat (New Town). The grounds for rejecting his application are as follows: i) There was no open space for parking at both Amta as well as Rajarjhat (New Town) points. ii) No new bus route should be created in Kolkata and Howrah in violation of the Transport Department Notification No. 3438-WT dated August 2, 2004.
(2.) The above issues have already been decided by a judgment dated July 8, 2009 delivered in the matter of Swapan Kr. Ghosh v. State and Ors. (In re: W.P. 31563(W) of 2008) and the relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below : "I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, the application of the petitioner for granting a stage carriage permit was rejected on two grounds mentioned hereinabove. With regard to the non-availability of the open space for parking at Amta, I find that the State Transport Authority issued one offer letter dated March 9, 2007 (annexure P-10 at page 82 to this writ application) granting a permanent stage carriage permit in respect of a route originating from Amta CTC Bus Stand. I further find that one member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly also issued a certificated dated January 18, 2008 (annexure P-11 at page 85 to this writ application) to the effect that a bus stand was available at Amta and many private buses were parking at Amta bus stand. With regard to the question of availability of open space at Rajarhat (New Town) I find from a number of notifications issued by the Transport Department, Government of West Bengal (at pages 73 and 77) at least two notifications were issued creating new routes for issuing stage carriage permit son a route at New Town, Rajarhat. This may be out of context to observe that the Rajarhat is a newly created town. The residents of that new town are body in need of transport facilities for residing in that town. Therefore, I find that the first ground for rejecting the application of the petitioner suffers from procedural impropriety. With regard to the second ground for rejection I find that the contents and purports of the Transport Department Notification No. 3438-WT dated August 2, 2004 have already been interpreted by two different Division Bench of this Court in the decision dated September 27, 2005 in the matter of Sujata Ganguly and Ors. v. State of West Bengal as also in the decision dated August 1, 2007 in the matter of Sukdev Saha v. Shyamal Ghosh . Two different Division Benches interpreted that the restrictions were imposed in respect of creation of new routes for applying stage carriage permit originating or terminating or touching four places, namely, Esplanade and Band Stand in Kolkata, Howrah Station and approach area of Howrah Bridge (Rabindra Setu). On a close scrutiny of the route under reference I find that the same did touch any of the aforesaid places. Therefore, the second ground of rejection of the application of the petitioner by the respondent no. 2 cannot be upheld in course of judicial review. As a consequence, the impugned resolution dated January 22, 2008 is quashed and set aside."
(3.) In view of the above settled principle of law the impugned resolution cannot be sustained in law and the same is quashed and set aside.;