MADHAB CHANDRA DAS AND ORS. Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of the three Rules Nos. 27, 38 and 39 of 1954. The questions which arise in these Rules are identical. Only one argument has been addressed by Mr. Ghose the learned Counsel for the Petitioners in all the three cases.

(2.) PETITION No. 27 is from Madhab Chandra Das (Petitioner) on his behalf and also in his representative capacity as Secretary of an Association of permit -holders. The Petitioner has no right to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 on behalf of others. He has no such authority. His learned Counsel has not supported the petition in so far as Madhab Chandra Das seeks to represent others. The petition shall be considered as though it was on behalf of the Petitioner alone. The petition of Maulvi Matiruddin Ahmed (C.R. 38) shall similarly be treated as on his own behalf. The petitions in Rules Nos. 38 and 39 relate to another route.

(3.) THERE is no real dispute about the facts of the case. What has happened appears clearly from a combined reading of the affidavits of the parties.