Bimal Kumar Das v. The State Of West Bengal And ORS.

12.03.2026 Item No.15 Court No. 10 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction AGM Appellate Side W.P.A. 14020 of 2025 Bimal Kumar Das -vsThe State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Barun Kumar Samanta.

... For the petitioner.

Mr. Pantu Deb Roy. Ld. A.G.P.

Mr. Ayan Chandra Roy.

Mr. Sutanu Chakraborty.

... For the State.

1. Heard the parties through their Learned counsels. The State respondents seeks extension of time to act in terms of an earlier Order dated 3rd February 2026 in respect of filing a compliance report for conducting a route inspection for the route from Tajpur to Jhalda.

2. The petitioner submits that although the transport authorities rejected his prayer for extending the route from Tajpur to Jhalda, the State Transport authority has issued offer letters to two operators (including Pranab Kumar Sahu for the route Jhalda to Masaria and one Anurup Sahu also for the route Jhalda to Masaria), effectively granting permits to other permit holders while denying the petitioner's request for extension.

3. In conspectus of the above, this Court finds a prima facie case has been made out by the petitioner regarding the dispute over the route extension noting inconsistency because Jhalda is treated as the originating point while the authority has issued permits to other operators by rejecting the petitioner's prayer for extension.

4. This Court is inclined to examine whether the action of the authority concerned is discriminatory or unjust in denying the petitioner's route extension while granting permits to others for similar routes.

5. Having heard the parties at length upon perusing available records, I find that for ends of justice the respondent No. 2 shall reconsider the Sl. No. 2 of agenda No. 32 in the light of Sl. Nos. 34 and 189 of Agenda No. 48 dated 26.02.2026 within a period of 8 weeks by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law upon affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other interested persons, if any, and communicate such decision within a week thereafter.

6. In view of the above, the decision of the authorities denying the petitioner's prayer for extension of the route is hereby quashed and set aside.

7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of.

8. Since affidavits have not been filed the allegations

made in the Writ Petition are denied and not admitted.

9. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.

[Smita Das De, J]