Arup Kumar Ghosh vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 24 December, 2024

Calcutta High Court

Arup Kumar Ghosh vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 24 December, 2024

        OD-2

                                      ORDER SHEET

                                      WPO/1223/2024

                          IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                            Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                                   ORIGINAL SIDE


                                ARUP KUMAR GHOSH
                                       VS
                         THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.


  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAI CHATTOPADHYAY
  Date : 24th December, 2024.


                                                                             Appearance:
                                                          Mr. Sankar Nath Mukherjee, Adv.
                                                                 Sk. Shamim Akther, Adv.
                                                                Ms. Manisha Paswan, Adv.
                                                                      ...for the petitioners

                                                                  Mr. Amal Kr. Sen, A.G.P.
                                                                    Ms. Selina Sumi, Adv.
                                                                            ...for the State



        The Court: The petitioner's grievance is that in the impugned order

dated    November       18,   2024,   the   Secretary,    Transport      Department,

Government of West Bengal has only reiterated its earlier order rejecting

prayer of the petitioner for curtailment of the permitted route, which has

already been      set   aside   by this     Court in     the   writ   petition    being

WPO/781/2024, thereby, not considering it afresh.

        Mr. Sen is representing the State.

        Mr. Sen has submitted that in delivering the impugned order dated

November 18, 2024, the said respondent has not done anything which is

contrary to the provisions of law. He would submit that the Secretary has
2

not stopped by only directing rejection of petitioner’s prayer, but has

permitted the petitioner to apply afresh for permit on the proposed curtailed

route. He would refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

reported in (2016) 8 SCC 402 G.T. Venkataswamy Reddy vs. State Transport

Authority & Ors. to submit that the Court has earlier held that grant of

variation would be as good as grant of a new permit. He would further say

that the issue involved in this writ petition is as to whether the respondent

authority has traversed its authority by doing something which may be

contrary to law, has not earlier been dealt with or decided by this Court in

the earlier writ petition. He would further submit that in respect of the

statutory provision, particularly, Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988, the respondent authority would be eligible to submit a fresh

application for grant of permit afresh, to the petitioner, as regards the

proposed modified/ curtailed route.

Let Mr. Sen come up with a report incorporating therein the

contentions of the State respondent with relation to the petitioner’s

grievance as ventilated in the present case. A copy thereof be served to Mr.

Mukherjee beforehand, so that an exception can also be taken out, if any.

Let such report be filed within a fortnight after reopening of the Court

and exception thereto be filed within one week thereafter.

Let this matter come up in the list on 28th January, 2025.

(RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.)

sg.