Susanta Chatterji, J - (1.) The present Mandamus Appeal has been preferred against the Order, dated 9.3.89 passed by the Learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and order, dated March 2, 1989 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, West Bengal, in State Transport Appeal No. 6 of 1987, the petitioner moved the writ petition before the Learned Single Judge stating inter alia that the petitioner is engaged in the passenger transport business since 1967 and is in possession of 2 (two) Road Stage Carriage vehicles of 1985 model plying on the route Asansol to Tata since July 1985 on the basis of temporary permit granted by the State Transport Authority, Government of West Bengal. It is further stated that from time to time temporary permits were granted to the petitioner under Section 62(1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act to enable the petitioner to ply the vehicles in the Inter-state route of Asansol to Tata. On or about 13th of September, 1986 an advertisement was made in the daily newspaper at the instance of State Transport Authority, West Bengal, inviting applications for grant of Enter-state Permanent Stage Carriage Permit in the route of Asansol to Tata (Express) besides other routes. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied far permanent permit in the route in question and by Resolution, dated 17.1.87 passed by State Authority, West Bengal, the petitioner was selected for the grant of one express permit on the aforesaid route on the ground that he had already been plying on that route for the last one year and a half on the basis of High Court's order and that it would not be fair to deprive him of this route and other candidates, however, were not suitable also. It was observed that each application was considered and rejected. Against the said resolution, dated January 17, 1987 the respondent No. 4, "Jaytara Cooperative Transport Society Limited", a registered co-operative society, preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, West Bengal. Upon consideration of all the materials on record, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal by order, dated March 2, 1989 and thus set aside the resolution of the meeting dated January 17, 1987 of the State Transport Authority, West Bengal and cancelled the permit granted in favour of the present appellant/writ petitioner, directed grant of a state carriage permit in the route in favour of the present respondent No. 4, Jaytara Transport Co-operative Society Limited, being the appellants before the Tribunal.
(2.) Against the said judgment and order the present appellant came to the Writ Court on the ground that the Learned Tribunal failed to consider that the appellant has been plying his vehicle on the route in question since 1985 on the basis of temporary permit granted by the respondent No. 2 after due selection. It was strenuously contended that the granting of permit to an existing owner/operator on the route or near the route is held to be a relevant consideration for the grant of permanent permit and that in the present case the permanent permit was granted by the authority to the appellant who is an existing operator on the route in question and that the order to set aside the said resolution is wholly illegal by applying the reservation rule in favour of respondent No. 4 though there is no such reservation made by the State Government under Section 47(1-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant further urged that the holding in favour of respondent No. 4 Co-operative Society formed with Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe members virtually on the basis that the vacancy is reserved for them and that the said Society should, therefore, be selected is erroneous in law though it would appear from the broad sheet that the said Co-operative Society did not fulfil all the conditions and even otherwise all the things were not equal within the meaning of the proviso to Section 47(1).
(3.) Having heard the Learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, the Learned Single Judge did not interfere with the judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal mainly on the ground that the Tribunal considered the following facts and circumstances: (a) The respondent No. 4 is a registered co-operative Society having 17 members of whom some belonged to the Scheduled Tribe and most of them came from weaker sections of the community; (b) The Society has been formed with some unemployed youths of the District of Purulia and it has been given financial assistance by the District Co-operative Bank Limited, D.R.D.A. and I.R.D.P. subsidized scheme with which it has purchased a bus; (c) the Society possesses a brand new luxury bus of a model later than of the petitioner; (d) The Society has experienced mechanics and garage; (e) Like the petitioner, the Society has also experience in running buses; (f) Other things being equal, the Society is entitled to get preference over the petitioner, who is an individual operator, under the amended proviso to Section 47(1) of the motor Vehicles Act; (g) The reason given by the Authority is untenable as Section 47(1) (e) of the Motor Vehicles Act does not imply that preference should be given to a person who holds a permit. The learned Single Judge found that the reasons assigned by the Learned Tribunal were just, proper, legal and relevant and the judgment of the Tribunal did not suffer from any legal infirmity and as a consequence thereof the Writ petition was rejected.;