Sk. Abdus Sattar v. The State Of West Bengal And ORS.

02.04.2025.

PB Sl. No.12.

Ct. No.25.

WPA 5948 of 2025 Sk. Abdus Sattar Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Asoke Hazra.

... For the Petitioner.

Mr. Pantu Deb Roy, Mr. Pannalal Bandopadhyay.

.....For the State.

The petitioner has claimed himself to be a valid permit holder, who operates as per the timetable dated October 4, 2024.

Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the timetable is inconvenient and not feasible for the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has made a representation dated February 21, 2025, for a change of the provisional timetable as above, and implementation of the proposed timetable as annexed by him with the said representation. The necessary statutory fees has also been submitted.

Mr. Deb Roy is represented through virtual mode.

Having heard the learned counsels and after perusing the records, it appears that the Route Permit No.PSTS-18/90-91, has been transferred in the name

of the present petitioner, though the date of transfer is not apparent on the face of the said route permit. The timetable which the petitioner follows, that is, dated October 4, 2024, and extended up to August 4, 2025, is not conducive to his smooth plying of vehicle as per the permit conditions. Hence, a counter proposal is forwarded by the writ petitioner, along with his letter dated February 21, 2025, for consideration of the Secretary, RTA, Purba Bardhaman.

Let this writ petition be disposed of by directing the Secretary, RTA, Purba Bardhaman, to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated February 24, 2025, for issuance of alternative provisional timetable as proposed by him, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, along with other stake holders, whose interest may be affected due to change of such provisional timetable.

Let that representation of the petitioner be disposed of by the Secretary, RTA, Purba Bardhaman, within a period of four weeks and disposed of by dint of reasoned order, if not the prayer of the petitioner is immediately allowed by the said respondent authority. The writ petition is disposed of.

Since no affidavit is called for in this case, the allegations made in the writ petition, are deemed to have been denied by the respondents.

Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)