Saambit Ghosh And ORS. v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

4th August, (AK) W.P.A 16672 of 2022 Sambit Ghosh and others Vs.

The State of West Bengal and others Mr. Nurul Islam Khan Mr. Amlan Kr. Mukherjee ...for the petitioners.

Mr. Santanu Kr. Mitra Ms. Rama Halder ...for the State.

Affidavit-of-service filed in court today be kept on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite the petitioners having given an objection in writing to the respondent authorities in respect of allegations of unauthorized and illegal plying of buses in Route Nos. 211, 211A and 211B, the respondent authorities have not taken any step on such representation.

Learned counsel relies on the complaint annexed at page-39 of the writ petition in order to highlight the objections taken by the petitioners.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities submits a report in court today which indicates that the RTA Board, in its meeting held on January 25, 2022, approved the route diversion of Route No.211A as stated in serial no.4 of the said report.

It appears from the materials-on-record that the complaint made by the petitioners was lodged in the month of June, 2022.

Although the report indicates that a Board meeting approved the route diversion-in-question, the same pertains to the month of January, 2022, which is earlier. It has been categorically submitted on behalf of the respondent authorities that a route diversion has been approved by the Board itself in respect of 211A, but the said report does not address the issue raised by the petitioners in their complaint, with regard to the buses and some operators not complying with the route alignments not only in respect of Route 211A but also 211 and 211B.

Moreover, whether the operators-in-question are plying their buses strictly in accordance with the diverted route in respect of 211A is also not dealt with in the said report.

Hence, WPA 16672 of 2022 is disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to decide on the complaint lodged by the petitioners, as annexed at page39 of the writ petition, upon giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as all concerned persons, whose interests might be affected by the decision, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight weeks from date. There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)