Harish Tandon, J. - (1.) Two points are raised in the instant writ petition by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners; firstly, the impugned resolution dated 7th February 2018 of the Board of Regional Transport Authority, Malda in granting permit to the applicants was in violation of Rule 103 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'said Rules') and secondly, the impugned resolution is bad having ignored the instructions/guidelines issued by the Transport Department wherein the route permit, which falls outside the region of Kolkata, can be granted to the new vehicle and not otherwise.
(2.) Undisputedly, the petitioners are the stage carriage operators in respect of the inter-regional routes from Malda to Raiganj and from Gazole to Berhampore respectively. Several applications were filed by the intending operators for grant of new stage carriage permits in different routes, some of them falls within one region and some between two regions. All such applications were taken up together in the said board meeting of the Regional Transport Authority and a comprehensive decision was taken approving the applications filed by such intending operators subject, however, to the "No Objection Certificate" to be granted by the other Regional Transport Authority in case of the route falling between two regions.
(3.) Mr. Rameswar Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that such decision offends the provision contained under Rules 103 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 providing mechanism and procedure for taking decision to grant permit on any route falling within the jurisdiction of two regions. Mr. Bhattacharya further submits that the instructions/orders of the Transport Department mandate the placement of new vehicle in the permit complying BS-III norms if it falls beyond the territorial limits of the Kolkata region and having not considered the same, the impugned resolution is liable to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Bhattacharya would further submit that some of the intending operators have placed the vehicle, which was incorporated in another permit and, therefore, cannot be treated as new vehicle in terms of the said instructions/guidelines/orders of the Transport Department. Mr. Bhattacharya emphasizes that if a thing is required to be done in a particular manner it should be done in such manner as the other manner has been excluded by placing reliance upon a judgment of the Privy Council in case of Nazir Ahmad -Vs- Emperor, 1936 AIR(PC) 253. Mr. Bhattacharya further submits that if the grant of permit is in derogation of the provision of the Act and Rules framed therein and the complaint in this regard having made to the concerned authority, it is a duty of the statutory authority to look into the matter as the failure may make such person aggrieved and an approach can be made before a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid contention is raised taking aid of the judgment delivered by the Full Bench in case of Prabhat Pan Vs- State of West Bengal, 2015 2 CalHN 185.;