HARISH TANDON,J. - (1.) A preliminary objection is taken by Mr. Bhattacharyee, learned advocate appearing for the private respondents that the relief prayed for in the instant writ petition is cryptic and cannot be granted as it stands.
(2.) Mr. Bhattacharyee, drawing attention to the prayer of writ petition submits the petitioner prayed for an order not only for setting aside and/or quashing the impugned order dated 28/11/2017 so far as it relates to the submission of fresh time table, preferably in night shift but the direction is sought therein upon the respondent authorities to issue appropriate order upon the concerned transport authority to stop the operation of the vehicle which are not operating on the basis of the appropriate time table and extend the time table of the petitioner for its smooth operation. The aforesaid point is taken for the reason that the different transport authorities are not impleaded as party respondent in the instant writ petition. The importance of pleadings as well as the reliefs claimed in the judicial system assumes importance and the significance and cannot be brushed aside at all. The petitioner who approaches the Court assailing the order of the statutory authorities, Government or the other authorities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India has to make out a clear right to sue and the reliefs based thereupon. If the larger relief cannot be granted for some reason or other but the other relief is appropriately claimed for, there is no fetter in the Court to grant such relief. The pleading is the important facet of dispensation of justice and the facts involved in relation to the cause of action must be explicitly, clearly and in lucid manner to be incorporated in the application. The cause of action is the bundle of facts which the litigant has to prove and if proved, the Court is to deliver a judgment on the reliefs claimed therein. The entire writ petition cannot be thrown out because larger reliefs are claimed in the instant writ petition some of which cannot be granted in absence of necessary and proper parties. This Court, therefore, does not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Bhattacharyee that a larger relief being claimed in the writ petition, the appropriate relief which has also been claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted. Before this Court proceeds to deal with the points canvassed in the instant matter, it would be apposite and necessary to adumbrate the salient facts of the case which are more or less undisputed. The petitioner applied for permanent stage carriage permit in respect of a route Hilli Bus Stand to Jalpaiguri Bus Stand, via Balurghat, Gangarampur, Banipur, Kaligunge, Dalkhola, Islampur, Siliguri Bus(TNBT) Jalpaiguri Bus Stand(Exp. Service). The State Transport Authority issued the permit to the petitioner which is admittedly valid till 03.01.2022. The time-table attached to the said permit was provisionally approved for a period of two months and thereafter was extended/renewed from time to time till 19.5.2017. The application was made by the petitioner for extension/renewal of the said time permit and because of the inaction on the part of the statutory authority, that is the State Transport Authority having not taken any decision thereupon, a writ petition was moved before this Court being WP No. 476 of 2017. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the State Transport Authorities to take a decision and, in compliance thereof, the impugned order, i.e. the order dated 28.11.2017 is passed. It further appears that some of the operators who are arraigned as respondent nos. 4 to 8 in the instant writ petition moved writ petition no. 15781(w) of 2017 raising a dispute on clash in the time schedule which was disposed of on June 19, 2017. The Court directed the STA to decide the representation filed by those respondents after affording an opportunity of hearing to all interested parties and pass the reasoned order. In compliance of the said direction, the order is passed which is also the subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition.
(3.) Mr. Bhattacharya,learned Advocate appearing for the private respondents took an exception against the challenge of both the orders in one writ petition as, according to him, both orders are independent and cannot be challenged in single writ petition. Had it been a case that an independent decision has been taken by an authority unconnected and/or unrelated with the petitioner, the point as urged before this Court may have found substance but my attention has been drawn to the separate order of the even date where the case of the petitioner was also taken into consideration because of the heavy congestion in the said route. There is no fetter in the law that the separate causes of action cannot be joined together if they are so intertwined and/or intermingled that the segregation would invite the inconsistent judgments and/or decisions. If the authorities have also taken into account the case of the individual operator while forming ultimate decision, such individual operator can also challenge such findings, if the same adversely affects his rights. Relegating the party to file two separate writ petitions challenging individual order would simply amount to burdening upon the Court as the consideration would be the one in the other affecting the parties to the litigations. It is merely a procedural aspect which cannot be said to be fatal and, above all, it is a convenience of the Court to see whether two separate causes of action can be joined in one litigation. By virtue of an Appellate Side Rules, the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure is made applicable to the writ petitions as far as practicable and, therefore, the procedural part applies. Order 2, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits the joinder of causes of action and the parties and, by virtue of Order 2, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court may direct the separate trials to be conducted, if it embarrasses or delays the trial. There is no ambiguity to the proposition of law that several causes of action, if mingled in such a manner, the separate trial, may not be necessary. There is no deterrent on the part of the Court to refuse the reliefs claimed in one proceeding or invite the petitioner to abandon or delete the other reliefs based upon the other cause of action and initiate a separate proceeding therefor. My attention is drawn to both the impugned orders annexed to the writ petition and there is no hesitation in my mind that they are so intertwined and/or inter-related that the separate trial will simply embarrass the parties and delay the disposal of the proceeding and may occasion the inconsistent judgments to operate in the field. This Court, therefore, does not find that the writ petition is required to be dismissed on such count alone.;