- (1.)In each of the 4 writ petitions, which have been heard analogously, the writ petitioner has challenged an order passed by the Regional Transport Authority rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of temporary permit.
(2.)Each of the writ petitioners applied for grant of temporary Stage Carriage Permit in route No. 12 / C / 1 / 2 before the Regional Transport Authority, Calcutta region. As the said application was not being disposed of, each of the petitioners moved this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution whereupon Shri Rang Mishra, J. was pleased to dispose the writ application by directing the Regional Transport Authority, Calcutta, to consider the question of grant of temporary permit for Stage Carriage to the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of 8 weeks from the communication of the order. Such application was thereafter considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Calcutta, considered and the petitioner was communicated with an order rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground that no purpose/ reason has been mentioned in the application for which a temporary permit can be granted.
(3.)It is the contention of the petitioner that the self same authority has granted temporary permit to Shri Gopal Seth and to Shri Kuldeep Dhawan, where as the same is being arbitrarily refused to the petitioner thereby making a hostile discrimination against the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the respondents is not a speaking order and the same is absolutely vague and in view of the liberal policy introduced under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of permit to those who entered into Motor Transport business such permit should have been granted to the petitioner.
;