S.C.Ghose, J. - (1.)This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia for the issue of Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order dated February 12, 1971 made by Respondent No. 2 and for directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application No. F/428 for stage carriage permit dated September 12, 1969 in accordance with the provisions of law. The application also seeks the issue of a Writ in the name of Certiorari for quashing the said impugned order dated February 12, 1971. The fact leading to the making of the present application are stated hereunder :
(2.)The petitioner was granted a temporary permit to ply a stage carriage on Route No. 4 (Baranagar to Tollygunj) under the Defence of India Rules on December 13, 1966. The said permit was extended fromtime to time and was finally extended up to June 30, 1967. The Petitioner made another application being No. F/428 for grant of temporary permit for plying stage carriage on the route from Shambazar Corner to Dum Dum Airport (Route No. 30B) on September 12, 1969. The said application was considered and rejected by R. T. A. on April 25, 1970 on the ground that the petitioner already possessed another permit for playing stage carriage on the route Diamond Harbour to High Court, Calcutta (Route Nos. 76 and 76A). Against the aforesaid order of rejection the petitioner appealed but the appeal was dismissed on February 12, 1971 by the S. T. A. Appellate Sub-Committee which was however communicated to the petitioner on November 12, 1971. The petitioner seeks to quash the order of the S. T. A. Appellate Sub-Committee and hence this application has been made by him.
(3.)Two grounds have been urged by Mr. Banerjee in support of the Rule Nisi, namely : (1) The rejection of the application filed by the petitioner for grant of a stage carriage permit was made on the ground that the petitioner had already a permit for plying a stage carriage on route No. 76 (Diamond Harbour to High Court, Calcutta) and further issue of a further permit to him will tend to create monopoly in the background of the unemployment problem of the country; and (2) the rejection of the petitioner's application was made mala fide on an extraneous ground even when permits had been issued to others having one or more permits for state carriage under the Motor Vehicles Act.