TMI Blog1955 (3) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice which was unremunerative. In May, 1953, the R.T.A., Murshidabad invited applications for one permanent permit on the Berhampore-Kharimpore route via Jalangi. The petitioner made an application and the respondent No. 14 also made an application and there were other applicants. A Sub-committee was appointed to go into the matter and it appears that a report was made. That report is not before me, nor has it been disclosed to the petitioner. On 15-2-1954, the Regional Transport Authority, Murshidabad resolved that the permanent route should be granted to the respondent No. 14, Sri Meghendra Narayan Singha. So far as the order is concerned nothing is said about other applicants. Against this order, the petitioner appealed to the State Trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such evidence it was difficult to give relief under Section 47(e). The Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Sub-Committee of the S.T.A. and of the R.T.A. and directed that the R.T.A. would hold the selection afresh and issue orders according to the provisions of the Act. This Rule was issued on 21-12-1954 upon the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of certiorari should not issue quashing the order of the Appellate Tribunal, and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus should not issue directing the respondents not to give effect to the said order on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Dutt has taken three points. The first point is that at the hearing of the Appellate Tribunal, one of the members Dr. A. D. Mukherjee was not pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been permitted. My attention has been drawn to the fact that in the copy of the Minutes it is stated that Sree B. K. Sen, Secretary of the State Transport, was also present as representative of the S. T. A. I do not think, however, that this affects the matter very much. The Minutes on the face of it also show that Dr. A. D. Mukherjee was present. It has been stated, however, on oath by the petitioner that Dr. A. D. Mukherjee was not present. In the petition it was, of course, not necessary to say anything about Sree B. K. Sen. In his affidavit, Mr. Sen does not state that he was present at the hearing, and if he was present at the hearing I do not see why he has verified it True to the best of my knowledge , because in that event it wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments, it was, I presume, given to the person who according to the R.T.A. was the most deserving. It follows that the applications of the others were rejected and/or refused. Every citizen has a fundamental right to carry the business of his choice. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act imposing restrictions and limitations thereon by way of imposing the requirements of taking out a permit and/or a licence, are reasonable but must be strictly followed. When a person applies for a permit the authorities must either accept it or refuse. They cannot keep it in cold storage or in the air so to say. I have no doubt whatsoever that in this particular case the legal position is that the application of the petitioner was refused. Consequently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
