- (1.) This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31st August, 2017 passed by a learned Judge of this court, dismissing a writ petition [W.P. No. 12242(W) of 2017] presented by the appellants. While considering the application for stay filed in the appeal, we have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties on the merits of the appeal, treating it as on day's list and dispensing with all the formalities. We propose to dispose of the appeal here and now.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the presentation of the writ petition are these. For providing stage carriage service on the route Kalna Ghat to Helencha (hereafter the said route), a permanent permit was issued by the State Transport Authority, West Bengal (hereafter the S.T.A.) in favour of the appellants on 4th July, 2006. The permit was valid till 3rd July, 2011. On the prayer of the appellants, the permit was renewed for a further period till 3rd July, 2016. It was one of the conditions of the permit that the appellants have to ply the vehicle covered thereby on the said route in terms of the timetable approved by the S.T.A. A complaint was received by the S.T.A. from an existing operator to the effect that the appellants were not plying the vehicle on the said route in conformity with the approved timetable but were so plying by tampering the timetable issued by the S.T.A. On receipt of such complaint, the appellants were called upon by memo dated 17th April, 2015 to submit their reply to such complaint. In their letter dated 9th February, 2016, the appellants admitted the veracity of the complaint. Considering such admission, the Secretary, S.T.A. by his memo dated 6th June, 2016 issued a notice to the appellants asking them to show cause within 15 days why necessary legal action shall not be taken in terms of Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter the Act) for alleged violation of the permit conditions. It was also indicated that if the appellants fail to reply within 15 days to the show cause notice, the S.T.A. would proceed in accordance with law without any further correspondence. The appellants did not reply within 15 days. The S.T.A. could have cancelled the permit without reminding them that the time limit to respond had expired. Surprisingly, the S.T.A. did not proceed to cancel the permit. By passage of time, the permit expired on 3rd July, 2016. On 26th July, 2016, the appellants submitted a reply to the show cause notice. It was their version that they were not aware of the approved timetable issued by the S.T.A. having been tampered with and that the persons who were authorised to operate the vehicle on the basis of the approved timetable were guilty of tampering the timetable, of which the appellants really had no knowledge. However, as soon as memo dated 17th April, 2015 had been received, the appellants had stopped operation of the vehicle and had made efforts to find out who was actually responsible for such tampering and plying of the vehicle not in conformity with the approved timetable. A month thereafter, 22nd August, 2016 to be precise, the appellants by an application prayed for renewal of the stage carriage permit which had expired on 3rd July, 2016. During the subsistence of the application for renewal of permit, the Secretary, S.T.A., vide memo dated 30th November, 2016, called upon the appellants to appear in person before the S.T.A. on 16th December, 2016 for a hearing in connection with the proceedings that had been initiated for cancellation of permit. The appellants were represented and heard by the members of the Board of the S.T.A. The decision taken by the Board, upon hearing the version of the appellants, reads as follows: "The alleged permit holders were asked to clarify the above matter and they have admitted the allegation made by Anil Adhikary regarding tampering of their existing time-table. As per order given by the Secretary, STA (the matter was deal with in file No. 7E-319/2007, nsp-12) notice to show cause was issued to the permit holders vide No. 728(3)-STA/SC/7E-74/2006 dated 06.06.2016. In reply to the notice to show cause the permit holders stated that: 1. They remained unaware about the fact of tampered time-table until the same was intimated by STA to them vide letter No. 527/(2)/STA/SC dated 17.04.2015, 2. They stopped operation of the vehicle on receipt of the said letter of the authority, 3. They blamed to an agent to whom they entrusted the work relating to the time-table in question, 4. Surrendering their forged time-table they have begged of apology and prayed for withdrawal of instruction given by this authority to RTO(s) towards seizure of their vehicle, 5. They have requested for to proceed with section 86 of M.V. Act, 1988 and considered their reply sympathetically. The matter is placed before STA for decision. Decision taken in the meeting. Amirul Islam was present personally. Anil Adhikary was present personally being accompanied by Ld. Advocate, Sk. Samim Akhtar. Amirul Islam stated that the members of staff of the vehicle forged the time table and wee operating the vehicle with the same without their knowledge. Members of STS considered this statement of one of the permit holders that members of staff were operating he vehicle with a forged time table without knowledge of permit holders clearly proves gross violation of the provisions laid down under Section 86(1)(b) of the M.V. Act, 1988. Hence, members of STA decided to cancel the permit in accordance with the provisions laid down under Section 86(1) of the M.V. Act, 1988." The aforesaid decision of the Board of the S.T.A. was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition.
(3.) On behalf of the appellants, it was contended before the learned Judge that the permit having expired on 3rd July, 2016, the S.T.A. had no authority to cancel the expired permit in its meeting held on 16th December, 2016. In support of the said proposition, reliance was placed on the decision of the Madras High Court, reported in A.I.R. 1983 Madras 365 (M/s. Ajantha Travels v. State Transport Authority, Pondicherry and Anr.) . It was also submitted on behalf of the appellants that since no decision in regard to cancellation of the permit had been taken prior to 22nd August, 2016, i.e. the date on which the appellants applied for renewal of the permit, the S.T.A. should be directed to consider such application, if required, on receiving appropriate fine in terms of the provisions of Rule 151 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules.;