- (1.) THE petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated March 14, 2012 is questioning an order of the State Transport Authority, West Bengal dated January 20, 2012 (at p.23).
(2.) RELEVANT parts of the impugned order dated January 20, 2012 are quoted below: "The matter is placed before STA for decision. The petitioner appeared and he was duly heard. It is found on hearing him and also examining the office records that two vehicles have already been permitted to ply under the coverage of the permit. Both the existing vehicles are leased and none of those is registered in the name of permit holder. Since, 2004 the permit is under operation without any reserved vehicle. Thereafter, the STA decided not to allow any reserved vehicle." The petitioner is the holder of a permanent stage carriage permit for the route Kolkata (CBT) ? Nalagola. He submitted an application dated March 29, 2011 (at p.16) requesting the STA to permit him to keep a vehicle as reserve to maintain the operation and to provide for special occasions. By the impugned order the STA has rejected his request. The provisions of cl.(xvii) of sub-s.(2) of s.72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empower a Transport Authority to permit the holder of a stage carriage permit to keep vehicles as reserve to maintain the operation and to provide for special occasions. The petitioner?s request to keep the specified vehicle as reserve to maintain the operation and to provide for special occasions has been rejected on the grounds that he has already been permitted to ply two vehicles covered by the permit, and that since 2004 he has been operating the existing vehicles leased by him without keeping any vehicle as reserve. While Mr Mukherjee appearing for the petitioner has argued that the reasons citing which the request has been rejected are no valid reasons, Mr Manna appearing for the State has submitted that the petitioner has not shown any special reason why he should be permitted to keep the vehicle in question as reserve.
(3.) IN my opinion, the STA was wrong in rejecting the petitioner?s request on the grounds that it has already permitted him to operate two leased vehicles, and that since 2004 he has been plying the vehicles without keeping any vehicle as reserve. IN para.13 it has been stated that the distance of the route is 410 k.m. This fact is not disputed. Permission has been given to ply two vehicles for convenience of the passengers. It is not the case that the petitioner has been plying the covered vehicles in contravention of the approved timetable. That he has leased the existing vehicles covered by the permit is no ground to say that he is not entitled to keep a vehicle as reserve. That he has been plying the existing two vehicles since 2004 without keeping any vehicle as reserve is no ground as well to reject his request for keeping a vehicle as reserve now. The vehicle is to be kept as reserve for maintaining the smooth operation according to the timetable. I do not see any reason why the permission should be refused.;