Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against an order dated 31st August, 2005 whereby the Hon'ble First Court was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. The said writ petition was dismissed by His Lordship on the ground that the Petitioner being an existing operator has no legal right to oppose the plying of the vehicle in the notified route.
(2.) Facts of the case briefly are as follows: The Petitioner/Appellant is a permanent State Carriage Permit holder in respect of the route Kolkata to jalpaiguri via VIP Road, Barasat, Karimpur, Berhampore Malda, Siliguri (TNBT) and the said permit is valid upto 18th March, 2008. The grievance of the writ Petitioner/Appellant that the Petitioner came to learn that on the basis of an offer letter bearing No. STA/77/05/SC/7E -1237/ 04 dated 10th January, 2005, the Deputy Secretary, State Transport Authority, West Bengal issued a permit in favour of the Managing Director, West Bengal Surface transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as WBSTC) on the same date. In the offer letter there are certain conditions to be fulfilled and no fulfillment of the same the permit can be ganted after one month thereafter. But it is stated by the Appellant that it would be evident from the said letter that grant of permit has been effected on the date of the offer letter issued and furthermore, the said offer letter was issued in violation of a notification issued by the State of West Bengal on 6th August, 2004. Other point which has been stated by the Appellant/Petitioner that the vehicles which have been placed in the route are not belonging to the WBSTC, but the said vehicles belong to private individual, it is also stated that a lease agreement has been entered between the said private individual and the WBSTC.
(3.) Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/Petitioner contended that the Hon'ble First Court has failed to construe the provisions laid down in Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). He further submitted that the provisions of law as laid down in Chapter V of the said Act has to be followed by the authorities before the grant of a new permit in favour of the State Transport Corporation or any other undertaking and the said Chapter VI has no manner of application and the same completely dehors the statute. He further contended that the Hon'ble First Court has erred in holding that the existing operator has no locus standi to challenge the same, even if the grant has been made in contravention to the provision of Rule 141 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. According to his, Sec. 104 of the said Act has no manner of application in the present facts and circumstances of this case. Hence, he submitted that the order so passed by the Hon'ble First Court is liable to be set aside. He further relied upon the following decisions - (i) unreported decision of the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 6229 (W) of 2002 (Manaranjan Mukherjee V. State of West Bengal and Ors.); (ii) an unreported decision delivered by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 8013 (W) of 2003 (Amirul Islam Muilick V. State of West Bengal and Ors.); (iii) a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in : AIR 1992 SC 443 (Mithilesh Garg V. Union of India and Ors.); (iv) a decision reported in, 2000 (2) CLJ 376 (Sushil Kumar Daga and Anr. V. The State of West Bengal and Ors.); (v) decision reported in, 2003 (1) CLJ 236 (Dilip Kumar Palmal and Ors. v/s. State of West Bengal and Ors.); (vi) an unreported decision of this Court in M.A.T. No. 1017 of 2003 (Mrityunjon Transport Company and Anr. V. The State of West Bengal and Ors.); (vii) an unreported decision in F.M.A.T. No. 2002 of 1996 (Secretary, Route No. 56 Bus Association V. Champadanga Dakshineswar Bus Association and Ors.) dated February 20, 1997 and he submitted that the Court came to the conclusion that there is no doubt that a rivaJ operator cannot ordinarily challenge the grant of permit merely on the ground of business competition, but it can be challenged if a permit is granted illegally or arbitrarily or in violation of any statutory provisions, Rules and Regulations and/or authorized administrative order.;