Sujit Kumar Singh v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

N.22Sl WPA 14083 of 2025 151/CL Sri Sujit Kumar Singh 01.07.25 v.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Sl-09 Ct.551 (S.R.) Mr. Sanat Kumar Roy Mr. Baidurya Ghosal ... for the petitioner.

Mr. Mrinal Kanti Biswas ... for the State.

Affidavit of service filed by the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner be kept on record.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged nonacceptance of the petitioner's application for permit in respect of a Contract Carriage (Auto Rickshaw) to be plied on the route Uttarpara Station to Dankuni Station via T.N. Mukherjee Road (Route No.126).

Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had duly submitted such application to the respondent Regional Transport Authority, Hooghly by post and that, the same was duly delivered on May 23, 2025. He further submits that despite such application having been submitted to the respondent Regional Transport Authority, no decision has yet been taken thereon.

Learned advocate appearing for the State hands up a copy of the instruction forwarded to him by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Hooghly

wherefrom it appears that the application, which was submitted by the petitioner was indeed received by the respondent Regional Transport Authority on May 23, 2025 and that, the respondent Regional Transport Authority replied thereto vide Memo No.747/MV dated May 27, 2025. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority has denied the allegation of non-acceptance of the application by the said Authority. A request has also been made by the said respondent Regional Transport Authority to the petitioner to submit a fresh application to the office counter of Motor Vehicles Section, Hooghly on any working days for further course of action. Copy of the instruction along with a copy of the letter dated May 27, 2025 handed up to Court today be taken on record. Copies thereof have already been made over to Mr. Roy in Court today.

Mr. Roy, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that his client has not received any such Memo dated May 27, 2025 as alleged by the respondent Regional Transport Authority.

Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the material on record, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of even without going into the controversy as to whether or not the application submitted by the petitioner before the respondent Regional Transport Authority has been disposed of by the Memo dated May

27, 2025 as alleged by the respondent Regional Transport Authority. Justice would be sub-served if the petitioner is left free to make a fresh application along with requisite fees before the relevant Regional Transport Authority, in accordance with law. If such application is made with requisite fees, the relevant Transport Authority shall accept such application along with fees and consider and dispose of the same, strictly in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such application along with fees.

With the aforesaid observations, WPA 14083 of 2025 stands disposed of.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)