- (1.) CASES were coming before the Court every now and then that the State transport Authority (STA) was refusing permit originating and terminating from the city of Kolkata and Howrah on the ground of pollution and congestion in the bus terminus and sometimes immediately thereafter such permits were being granted. In some cases the refusal was supported by an alleged policy decision of the Government which was also so disclosed in some cases by affidavit. Ultimately, it was found that no such policy decision was ever taken in the circumstances, this Court having faced difficult situation in deciding this question, where the State Government was taking different stands in different cases, directed the State Government to form a committee to submit a report on the two grounds on which permits were being refused, and on the basis of such report to take a policy decision as it might think fit and proper. 1. 1. Accordingly, a committee was appointed. The committee after going into the matters had submitted its report. Upon consideration of the said report the Government took a policy decision. This policy decision was notified by notification No. 3438-WT/bm-139/2004 dated 2nd August, 2004. This notification was published in the Official Gazette on 6 August, 2004. By reason of the said notification a policy decision was intimated to the public prohibiting issue of new permits in respect of Stage Carriages on the routes both notified and non-notified touching/originating/terminating at Kolkata and H0owrah CBD (Central business District) viz, Esplanade and Band Stand in Kolkata and Howrah station and approach areas of Howrah Bridge (Rabindra Setu ). 1. 2. By reason of this notification various writ petitions were moved on the ground that some offer letters were issued before 6th August, 2004 but on account of the interim order granted in this appeal no permit was being granted and there are various other grounds on which various applications were being made. After impleading respective applicants as parties to the appeal various interim orders were being issued. 1. 3. Now the time has come to call it a day. Since, a policy decision has already been adopted and a notification under section 71 (3) (a) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 has since been issued in respect of the city of Kolkata and howrah respectively, the question has to be decided as to how the permits are to be granted. By reason of the said policy decision various operators are facing various difficulties. These are being highlighted before us. Each individual case requires individual attention in respect of the case pleaded. However the cases may be categorized in few groups having common points in between them. It is for the State Government to formulate a scheme for dealing with these various kinds of cases grouping them in different groups having common questions involved. Preliminary objection : Locus standi of the appellant:
(2.) MR. Manick Das, learned Advocate for some of the applicants has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition and the appeal on the ground that the writ petitioners have no locus standi since they are not interested in the plying of the vehicle; they are only common people. According to him the writ petition can only be treated as Public Interest Litigation which this Court cannot entertain. It should have been moved before the appropriate bench dealing with Public Interest Litigation. 2. 1. We are unable to agree with the proposition advanced by Mr. Das for the simple reason that this Court had directed the State Government to form a policy in view of the fact that everyday inconsistent stands were being taken by the State for which this Court was being called upon to decide the issues on divergent stands and which really perplexed the Court as to how to deal with this question and the Court was being flooded with cases unnecessarily.-The courts valuable time was being encroached upon by reason of a situation emanating from the divergent stand taken by the State Transport Authority and the Government, as the case may, be for which the Court thought it fit to intervene into the matter to streamline the system in order to prevent the flooding of the Court having determination with unnecessary litigation. It was in the interest of the Court having determination that this Court activated itself. It was, in fact, for preserving the process of the Court by saving itself from being flooded with unnecessary litigation. It was not for the interest of the writ petitioners or the appellants as the case may be. Therefore, we do not think that it could be a Public Interest Litigation for being excluded from the determination of this Court. In any event this point was taken by Mr. Das alone. This point has not been supported by any of the Counsel for any of the other operators or the parties added in this appeal. 2. 2. That apart it seems that once the matter is settled it will enure to the benefit not only to the other operators but also to the operators represented by mr. Das as well. One cannot claim that there should be dis-order in the whole system in which some designing people can fish in the troubled water and a systematic process should not be introduced. One cannot oppose the streamlining of the system itself under which he is supposed to gain. Therefore, we overrule the point of maintainability taken by Mr. Das. Section 68 (3) (b) : Scope and ambit: Interpretation:
(3.) MR. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had taken a point that the State Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to grant any permit in inter-regional routes or in intra-regional routes. The answer to this question may be found under section 68 (3) clause (b) of the 1988 Act. Normally, a Regional Transport Authority is supposed to deal with the question of grant of permit in intra-regional routes and inter-regional routes but in terms of clause (b) sub-section (3) of section 68, the State Transport Authority is empowered to perform the duties of the Regional Transport Authority in case (i) where there is no such transport authority; (ii) where it thinks fit to perform those duties in respect of that route common to two or more regions and (iii)where it is so required by the Regional Transport Authority to perform duties in respect of any routes common to two or more regions. Thus, this provision empowers the State Transport Authority to perform all and every duty even in respect of intra-regional routes where there is no regional transport authority. But in cases where there are Regional Transport Authority, the State Transport authority cannot deal with the grant of permit in intra-regional routes. However, it can deal with permits if the route is common to two or more regions in cases it is so required by the Regional Transport Authority to perform such duties and also in cases where the State Transport Authority thinks it fit to perform such duties in respect of such routes. Therefore, there is no total embargo on the State Transport Authority to deal with such cases; but it is expected that the State Transport Authority should make it clear by declaring a policy as to whether in and which case it would take up on itself the responsibility of granting permits in route common to two or more regions. 3. 1. A plain reading of section 68 reveals that the power of the Regional transport Authority can be exercised by the State Transport Authority only within the scope and ambit provided in clause (b) of section 68 (3 ). The exercise of power of the State Transport Authority in relation to grant of permit is thus restricted within the conditions provided in clause (b) of section 68 (3 ). 3. 2. This provision has to be read in consonance with the other provisions relating to grant of permit provided in sections 69, 80 and 81 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 along with Rule 86 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Section 69 deals with all kinds of permits and it provides that it has to be made only to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which vehicles are proposed to be used. If the vehicles are proposed to be used in two or more regions lying within the same State, then also the application is to be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the major portion of the proposed route or area lies. In case the route or area in each region is approximately equal, then to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the vehicle is proposed to be kept. In case the area lies in one or more region lying in different states, then the application is to be made to the Regional transport Authority of the region in which the applicant resides or has his principal place of business. Section 69 does not provide that an application could be made to the State Transport Authority in any circumstances. Therefore the State Transport Authority can exercise the power of the Regional Transport authority only within the scope and ambit of section 68 (3) (b ). However, section 80 also speaks of Regional Transport Authority. Thus, in normal course or in other words, ordinarily the State Transport Authority cannot entertain any application for permit except in cases coming within section 68 (3) clause (b)that too in accordance with Rule 86 empowering the State Transport Authority to discharge the function of Regional Transport Authority in appropriate cases subject, however, to the approval of the State Government. In case the State transport Authority takes upon itself the function of granting permit, in that event, there might be administrative difficulty. In such cases, it can regulate and coordinate through the Regional Transport Authority and can take upon the question of grant of permit only when the State Government approves such exercise of power by appropriate decision declared by it. 3. 3. This is more so because of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 68 requiring a State Transport Authority to co-ordinate and regulate the activities and policies of the Regional Transport Authority of the State. Therefore, in case if the State Transport Authority so thinks fit, it can so deal with grant of permit in routes common to two or more regions in order to subserve the necessity provided in clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 68 read with clause v that too in accordance with Rule 86. It is further clarified by clause (c) which empowers the State Transport Authority to settle all disputes and decide all matters in which there might be difference of opinion between Regional transport Authorities. Therefore, the law being clear, the special power of the state Transport Authority can be exercised within the scope and ambit as provided therein subject to approval of the State Government as contemplated under Rule 86. 3. 4. It is expected that the Government and the State Transport Authority, as the case may be, shall take appropriate steps so as to ensure compliance of performance of its duty provided under clause (a) and more so in relations to clause (b) and clause (c) as the case may be in consonance with Rule 86 and it is expected that the State Government it should declare a policy or its approval in order to make it clear to the operators as to where the respective applications are to be made and the authorities who would be competent to grant such permit in order to regulate and coordinate the activities of the respective regional Transport Authorities, as the case may be. The Policy Decision dated 6th August, 2004: Validity:;