- (1.) THE petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated December 8, 2011 is seeking the following principal relief: "a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to cancel, rescind, withdraw and/or set aside the impugned condition imposed in the offer letter (Annexure P/3 to this writ petition) for placing B.S.-IV Compliant Taxi forthwith." THE petitioner applied to the Regional Transport Authority, South 24-Parganas for grant of a contract carriage permit. In its meeting held on July 4, 2011 the RTA decided to grant him a permit. Accordingly, it issued an offer letter dated August 10, 2011 asking him "to place a BS-IV compliant Light Passenger Vehicle (Meter Taxi) with seating capacity 5 I.D. within 15th October, 2011."
(2.) BY an application dated September 6, 2011 the petitioner informed the RTA that no BS-IV complaint vehicle was available with any dealer and requested it to permit him to place a BS-III complaint vehicle. Since the RTA did not give any attention to the request, he gave a reminder letter dated November 9, 2011. The RTA ignored this letter as well. Feeling aggrieved, he has brought this WP. Under the terms of the offer he was to place a BS-IV complaint vehicle within October 15, 2011. Since no BS-IV complaint vehicle was available with any dealer, the petitioner submitted the application dated September 6, 2011 giving the information and requesting the RTA to vary the terms of the offer. When the RTA was under an obligation to consider the question of either varying the terms of the offer or extending the term thereof according to provisions of r.141 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, it remained simply silent. Mr Deb Roy appearing for the RTA has submitted that since the term of the offer has already expired, there is no scope for giving the benefit of extension that, in any case, could be given upto a maximum period of six months from the date of the letter.
(3.) THE decision to grant the petitioner a contract carriage permit is still in force. By its inaction the RTA could not nullify its binding force. It would have lost its binding force only if the petitioner had failed to accept the offer. Admittedly, he accepted the offer and then stating the reasons for his inability to place the specified category vehicle within its term, he submitted the requisite application that created the RTA?s obligation to act. The RTA was under an obligation to consider the question of either varying the terms of the offer or extending the term of the offer upto six months, the maximum period permissible under r.141. Before expiration of the period of six months the petitioner made two requests and then citing the RTA?s total indifference brought this WP, during whose pendency the six-month period has expired. He cannot suffer for inaction of others. 3;