Jansi Rani v. The Chief Secretary And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR *** WPA/929/2023 Smt Jansi Rani Vs.

The Chief Secretary and others Mr. Gopala Binnu Kukar Ms. Vinita Devi ... for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the respondents September 21, 2023 [SR] Item No.11 The petitioner was given a carriage permit for a route starting from Quarry Basthi, Carbyn Chowk to G.B.Pant Hospital via Bus Stand, Goalghar, Bhatu Basthi, Carbyn Chowk. The petitioner was plying the vehicle in the aforesaid route but experienced no passenger and even in Covid there was a complete disruption. Subsequently, a request was made to the competent authority for changing the route. On the basis of such request having made by the petitioner, the State Transport Authority constituted a committee to submit a report as to whether the request made by the petitioner can be acceded to.

Brookshabad Tsunami Shelter-I to Bus Stand via Carbyn Chowk, Austinabad, Bathu Basthi, Goalghar and vice versa. According to the petitioner, the said realigned route was communicated by the competent authority and carriage permit was issued with effect from 16.01.2022 to 10.01.2025. All of a sudden, the petitioner received a communication that the said changed route or realigned route has been cancelled and the carriage permit issued to the petitioner in respect of the original route is restored.

The State Transport Authority decided to cancel the realigned route as there was a public demand of the transport in the said route. Even the reports filed before the State Transport Authority does not indicate unanimous decision taken by the residents of the said locality or the said route but surreptitiously a decision has been taken to cancel the same. There was no opportunity of hearing given to the petitioner before taking a decision in cancelling the route for which the carriage permit was issued nor any documents are forthcoming which would indicate that the petitioner was made aware of the reasons for taking such decision.

Any decision is taken by an administrative authority affecting the right of the person without affording any opportunity of hearing cannot withstand on the touch stone of the constitutional policy.

The minutes of the State Transport Authority meeting held on 09.06.2023 does not reveal that any opportunity was given to the petitioner before cancelling the route permitted on a conscious decision taken in the meeting held on 2nd December, 2022. Even there was a dissent amongst the local residents and,

therefore, the reason was accepting the demand of the local residents is a question to be gone into.

In view of the fact that the decision has been taken without adhering the principles of audi alteram partem, therefore, the said decision cannot be sustained. The decision of the cancelling the route allowed by the authority in a meeting held on 9th June, 2023 is hereby quashed and set aside. The State Transport Authority is directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before it proceed to take a decision and it goes without saying that the petitioner shall be provided with all the documents placed before the said State Transport Authority and must also be afforded an opportunity to deal with the same.

With these observations, the writ petition is thus disposed of.

No order as to costs.

Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties subject to compliance with requisite formalities.

( Harish Tandon, J. )