Protik Prakash Banerjee, J. - (1.) Despite service of the writ petition, none has appeared to oppose thi petition on behalf of the State. It appears that at no point of time any one appeared for the State despite service having been effected twice, last time in terms of the order dated October 3, 2016. However on going through the petition it appears that the facts in this case are similar to the facts in item Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 of today's supplementary list where I have already passed a substantive judgment interpreting the provisions of Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with the substituted Rule 126 and Rule 127 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Since the facts are very similar to the items as above, a similar judgement shall ultimately have to be passed. Merely because the State of West Bengal is not represented, I do not want to pass any order ex parte. Accordingly, I requesst Mr. Amal Kumar Sen, learned Additional Government Pleader to assist the Court in this matter with a junior of his choice. The learned Government Pleader is requested to regularise the appointment of Mr. Sen, learned advocate along with a junior of his choice. A copy of the writ petition shall be formally served on Mr. Sen's junior within course of today for his records. Therefore, the following judgment similar to that passed in item Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 be passed in this matter with only the change that whereever in the following judgment I have referred to any affidavit in opposition having been filed on behalf of the State of West Bengal, it should be read as it is apparent from the writ petition that no application was made in the prescribed format or with the prescribed fees. A short point involved in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether the writ petitioner is liable to make an application in a prescribed form and pay the fees prescribed in Schedule A to the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 for his application for change of alignment which is to say, altering the route or area covered by his contract carriage permit for plying an auto-rickshaw.
(2.) Admittedly, the position is that the petitioner had a contract carriage permit as aforesaid for plying his auto-rickshaw within a specified area, and that he made a representation for being allowed to change or alter the said area by way of change of alignment. This was on the ground of financial difficulties caused by battery operated contract carriages plying in the area, which affected his revenue which he apprehended might result in the auto-rickshaw, subject to a hypothecation/finance agreement, being repossessed. It is not disputed that this was the only ground made out in the application. However, he did not pay any fees for the same nor applied in any prescribed form. His contention is that there is no specific rule nor any statutory provision specified in Schedule A to the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 which would require him to pay any fees.
(3.) To appreciate the contention of the writ petitioner, section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is required to be considered: "(3) An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than an temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by altering the route or routes or area covered by it, or in the case of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum or by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes or the area specified in the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit: Provided that it shall not be necessary so to treat an application made by the holder of stage carriage permit who provides the only service on any route to increase the frequency of the service so provided without any increase in the number of vehicles: Provided further that, (i) in the case of variation the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed twenty-four kilometers; (ii) in the case of extension, the distance covered by extension shall not exceed twenty-four kilometers from the termini, and any such variation or extension within such limits shall be made only after the transport authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended or any part thereof.";