SUBRATA TALUKDAR, J. - (1.) The short point of challenge in this writ petition are to the resolutions taken by the Regional Transport Authority, Dakshin Dinajpur (for short referred to only as the RTA or, RTA, DD) dated 08.09.2014, 27.01.2015 and 23.05.2015 granting several State carriage permits on the route Balurghat Bus Stand to Hilli. Sri Arabinda Chatterjee, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners argues that the offer letters issued by the RTA, DD are indiscriminate. Such offer letters are in clear violation of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement of Mithilesh Garg & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1992 (1) SCC 168. Particularly relying on paragraph 15 of In Re: Mithilesh Garg (supra), Sri Chatterjee argues that the RTA must restrain itself from granting permits arbritrarily and mechanically without considering the possible effect of the wholesale grant of permits on overcrowding of the route, congestion on the road, pollution hazard and such other allied aspects. Sri Chatterjee therefore submits that the restrictions noticed at paragraph 15 of In Re: Mithilesh Garg (supra) have been also noticed by the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court In Re: Sandip Kumar Charan vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2003 CWN 647. Sri Chatterjee also clarifies the judgement of the Hon'ble Special Bench of this Court In Re: Prabhat Pan & Ors. on the ground that since the permits are being offered by the RTA, DD in violation of paragraph 15 of In Re: Mithilesh Garg (supra), following the ratio of the judgement of the Hon'ble Special Bench the petitioners being the existing operators have the locus to maintain the present writ petition on the strength of the proposition that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court In Re: Mithilesh Garg is now the law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Sri Chatterjee points out that the self -same RTA, DD was pleased to record a resolution dated 01.10.2003 in respect of the same route Raiganj to Hilli which overlaps the present route Balurghat to Hilli on the ground that the route is overcrowded. Ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioners therefore questions the deviation in the approach of the RTA vide the resolutions impugned dated 08.09.2014, 27.01.2015 and 23.05.2015 suddenly deciding to grant permits en masse to new operators. Sri Chatterjee further points out that it is not the mandate of the statute that any RTA would close its mind to the ground realities prior to grant of permits in respect of a particular route.
(2.) Appearing for the State respondents, Sri Amal Kumar Sen, Ld. Senior Government Advocate strenuously submits as follows: - a) That the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the MV Act or the 1988 Act or the MV Act, 1988) is a complete code by itself. The grant of permits by the RTA is regulated under the MV Act and, particularly section 71 (3 )(a), 74 (3)(a), 80(1) and 80(2) thereof. Sri Sen argues that there are no other restrictions on the RTA to issue permits except the provisions of the above noted four sections with their sub -sections of the MV Act. b) Analyzing the provisions of the above noted sections of the MV Act, Sri Sen argues that in cities enjoying a population of more than 5 lakhs the number of permits that can be issued on a particular route cannot exceed the notified number. Sri Sen also points out that no reasons are required to be shown by the RTA while granting the permits and reasons are required only when permits are refused. The statute also makes it clear that "ordinarily" a permit cannot be refused. c) Ld. State Counsel therefore makes the primary point that the arguments advanced by Sri Chatterjee stand beyond the statutory prescription. Being a quasi - judicial authority the RTA, DD must act within the four corners of the statute. d) Sri Sen makes the next point that this Court is required to examine whether paragraph 15 of In Re: Mithilesh Garg (supra) is the ratio decidendi or, only the obiter dicta of the said judgement. Sri Sen argues that paragraph 15 of In Re: Mithilesh Garg is only the obiter dicta and, actually the Hon'ble Supreme Court In Re: Mithilesh Garg (supra) decided in favour of the liberalized policy of granting permits brought into force by the MV Act, 1988. Therefore, Sri Sen submits that paragraph 15 of In Re: Mithilesh Garg cannot come to the assistance of the petitioners. e) Sri Sen therefore makes the derivative point following the ratio of the Hon'ble Special Bench In Re: Prabhat Pan and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in 2015 (2) CHN 185 (supra) that the petitioners as the existing operators have been unable to demonstrate a right founded on a statute to maintain the present writ petition. Sri Sen argues that the cause -of - action espoused by the present petitioners is actuated by economic factors and, a writ petition is therefore barred as held by the Hon'ble Special Bench In Re: Prabhat Pan and Ors. (supra). f) Relying on the decisions of this Hon'ble Court In Re: 1993 (2) CLJ 229 (at paragraph 34) and In Re: 1994 (2) CLJ 235 (at paragraph 8), Sri Sen submits that both the decisions have underscored the point that consideration of the ground of congestion on the route is foreign to the exercise of jurisdiction by the RTA. Sri Sen elaborates by arguing that under the old MV Act, 1939 the objection of the existing operators was required to be considered by the RTA prior to granting permits. However, under the present MV Act, 1988 the requirement of inviting objections has been removed and, such has been upheld In Re: Mithilesh Garg (supra). g) On the point of ratio decidendi of a case Sri Sen relies upon the decisions reported in 2011 (5) SCC 708 (at paragraph 32) and 2013 (15) SCC 414 (at paragraphs 32 to 38). Sri Sen also relies upon the judicial authority of the decision reported in 2001 (8) SCC 437 (at paragraph 32) on the point as to the purported reasons for refusing a permit alternatively, the purported restrictions on the grant of a permit. Sri Sen concludes on the note that the RTA, DD is not guilty of any statutory infraction in respect of its impugned resolutions dated 08.09.2014, 27.01.2015 and 23.05.2015. Appearing for the private respondent numbers 1 to 10, being the grantees of the permits by the RTA, DD, Sri N.I.Khan, Ld. Counsel reiterates the submissions advanced by Ld. State Counsel. Sri Khan points out that with reference to the decisions reported in 1994 (2) CLJ 235 and 2015 (2) CHN 185, not only the ground of congestion on the route is not available to the petitioners but, in effect by claiming an economic interest qua the route in issue the present writ petition is not maintainable.
(3.) The private respondent no.11 is represented by Sri Sattwik Bhattacharya, Ld. Counsel who emphasises the fact that under both the statutory provisions of the MV Act, 1988 and the law settled by the Hon'ble Special Bench, no writ petition can lie challenging the resolution of the RTA, DD offering the permits.;