Arindam Sinha, J. - (1.) The petitioner is an existing operator in respect of bus route nos.30C and 30C/1. He operates his vehicle on those routes. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate appeared on his behalf and submitted, the challenge of his client is directed against order dated 22nd January, 2016, corrigendum dated 4th March, 2016 and gazette notification dated 30th June, 2016 with regard to increase in number of permits on the said routes. The private respondents who were some of the petitioners in a public interest litigation, pursuant to order obtained therein had made representation before the authorities to get done this increase in number of permits as allegedly the requirement of the travelling public, such permits thereafter having been granted to them.
(2.) He submitted, section 71(3)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provided for permits on notified routes being limited in number. The limit for the said routes was fixed at 50 which had thereby been increased to 70. He relied on supplementary affidavit filed by State in which was disclosed proposal by resolution adopted on 3rd September, 2014, inter alia, to the effect that subject routes should be increased by 5 permits each. He submitted, there was no connection disclosed in the supplementary affidavit regarding whether such proposal was considered in granting further 20 permits over and above the original limit of 50 for the said routes. The Inquiry Report dated 28th October, 2015 disclosed at pages 15 and 16 of that affidavit cannot be said to be report of an inquiry conducted. It is bereft of particulars and admittedly an exercise in compliance of order made in the public interest litigation said to have been moved by commuters, 17 of whom had been granted the new permits. The Inquiry Report did not give a date as to when the inquiry was made. The two bus stands mentioned are one of the terminal bus stands and the bus stop next. The report of purported inquiry, according to him, is an expression of opinion which cannot be considered as facts revealed on inquiry. The said report cannot stand scrutiny let alone to be the basis for the limit of number of permits being enhanced.
(3.) His client discovered the identities of some of the petitioners in the public interest litigation being WP 14545 (W) of 2015 (Sarup Biswas & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.), disposed of by order dated 31st July 2015 directing the State to consider the representation being Annexure P-3 and after due inquiry, take necessary steps as contemplated under the Act in accordance with law. His client had on discovery applied for recall of that order which application, though rejected by order dated 10th February, 2017, carried the following observations: " That apart, we find that the decision of the respondent authorities pursuant to direction of this Court is already the subject matter of challenge in a separate proceeding being W.P.26463 (W) of 2016 at the behest of the applicant. We are, therefore, not inclined in allowing the aforesaid application. We, however, note with displeasure the fact that the writ petitioners had not disclosed their identity as permit holders while taking out the public interest litigation in their capacity as commuters in respect of the aforesaid route. We observe that all issues available to the applicant may be agitated in accordance with law in the pending writ proceeding wherein the decision taken by the respondent authorities pursuant to the direction passed by this Court has been assailed .";