S.B. Sinha, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 20th July, 1998 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 8401 (W) of 1998, whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-appellant was dismissed.
(2.) The fact thereafter lies in a very narrow compass. The petitioner- appellant filed an application for permit for route Sagardighi to Calcutta, which was later on extended as Raghunathgunj to Calcutta. As despite an order allowing such an application, no permit was being granted, the appellant- petitioner filed a writ application before this Court which was marked as W.P. No. 15338 (W) of 1997. By an order dated 4.11.1997, this Court directed the Regional Transport Authority to consider the said fact. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said direction the impugned order dated 13.4.1998 as contained in annexure 'H' to the application for injunction has been passed by the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, Murshidabad. Before the learned Trial Judge principally two questions were raised, (1) successive temporary permits cannot be granted hence there exists a permanent vacancy and Regional Transport Authority, Murshidabad in the meeting dated 30th September, 1985 granted permanent permit of route for Sagardighi to Calcutta in favour of the petitioner after proper advertisement; and (2) Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to pass the said order. However, the said plea of the appellant did not find favour of the learned Trial Judge.
(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the learned Trial Judge committed an error in dismissing the writ application in limine. The contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the opinion of this Court, are well founded. It is now a settled principle of law that the Secretary of Regional Transport Authority cannot pass an order. An order in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the purpose of grant of permit can only be passed by the Regional Transport Authority in a duly constituted meeting. The Secretary of Regional Transport Authority may only communicate the decision of the authority but cannot in absence of any jurisdiction exercise any independent power. A bare perusal of the impugned order as contained in annexure 'H' shows that the Secretary had exercised such a jurisdiction which he did not possess. Furthermore, it is well settled principle of law that where there exists a permanent need, grant of successive temporary permits is deprecated. Furthermore, as noticed hereinbefore, as far back as in the year 1985, such a decision to grant permanent permit had been taken by the Regional Transport Authority, Murshidabad.;