S.P.Talukdar, J. - (1.) Common points of facts and law being involved in the eight cases as mentioned earlier, by consent of learned Counsel for the parties all those were heard at a time. The same are governed by this judgment
(2.) In M A T No. 1961 of 2005, respondent, Sri Kalyan Chakrabarty, as petitioner, filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and the grievances, as ventilated in the said application, may briefly be stated as follows: He made an application on 14th January, 2000 for grant of permanent offer letter in connection with Auto-Rickshaw permit in respect of the route from Chinsurah C.O.M.H. Office to Farm Gate. The said application was rejected without assigning any reason though the present appellants were required to dispose of the application in accordance with law and after giving him an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner then approached this Court by filing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution which was disposed of by order dated 5th June, 2000 by issuing a direction upon the Regional Transport Authority to consider the application on merit within twelve weeks from the date of communication of the order. Petitioner approached the authority concerned but by letter dated 25.08.2000, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Hooghly informed that his application was rejected. This Court was approached again and by order dated 27.11.2000, this Court while rejecting purported letter dated 25.08.2000 directed the authority to reconsider the application. The petitioner was then heard by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Hooghly who by letter dated 27.03.2001 communicated that the application for grant of permit was again rejected. Petitioner was, however, given a copy of the chart of the routes and was given the choice of selecting one from the same. The order dated 27.03.2001 passed by the Secretary, was, thereafter, rejected by learned Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court by order dated 03.09.2001. The petitioner approached the authority concerned again and he was heard. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Hooghly vide Memo No. 3052 (7)/ MV, communicated the resolution dated 05.10.2001 and, in fact, the authority stuck to its earlier stand thereby, while rejecting his application for grant of permit, gave option for choosing any other prescribed route.
(3.) The petitioner was, thus, left with no choice but to approach this Court again with an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and by the impugned judgment dated 11.04.2005, the learned Single Bench of this Court while disposing of the writ application being W.P.No. 19248 (W) of 2001 directed the authority concerned to issue permanent contract carriage permit within a specified period.;