S.C. Ghose, J.
1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia for the issue of Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order dated February 12, 1971 made by Respondent No. 2 and for directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application No. F/428 for stage carriage permit dated September 12, 1969 in accordance with the provisions of law. The application also seeks the issue of a Writ in the name of Certiorari for quashing the said impugned order dated February 12, 1971. The fact leading to the making of the present application are stated hereunder :
2. The petitioner was granted a temporary permit to ply a stage carriage on Route No. 4 (Baranagar to Tollygunj) under the Defence of India Rules on December 13, 1966. The said permit was extended fromtime to time and was finally extended up to June 30, 1967. The Petitioner made another application being No. F/428 for grant of temporary permit for plying stage carriage on the route from Shambazar Corner to Dum Dum Airport (Route No. 30B) on September 12, 1969. The said application was considered and rejected by R. T. A. on April 25, 1970 on the ground that the petitioner already possessed another permit for playing stage carriage on the route Diamond Harbour to High Court, Calcutta (Route Nos. 76 and 76A). Against the aforesaid order of rejection the petitioner appealed but the appeal was dismissed on February 12, 1971 by the S. T. A. Appellate Sub-Committee which was however communicated to the petitioner on November 12, 1971. The petitioner seeks to quash the order of the S. T. A. Appellate Sub-Committee and hence this application has been made by him.
3. Two grounds have been urged by Mr. Banerjee in support of the Rule Nisi, namely : (1) The rejection of the application filed by the petitioner for grant of a stage carriage permit was made on the ground that the petitioner had already a permit for plying a stage carriage on route No. 76 (Diamond Harbour to High Court, Calcutta) and further issue of a further permit to him will tend to create monopoly in the background of the unemployment problem of the country; and (2) the rejection of the petitioner's application was made mala fide on an extraneous ground even when permits had been issued to others having one or more permits for state carriage under the Motor Vehicles Act.
4. With regard to the second ground no particulars have been furnished by the petitioner in support of his contention and as such I am unable to accept the said contention.
5. In Shri Krishnagopal Dutta v. Regional Transport Authority, Burdwan reported in : AIR1970Cal104 it has been held by B. C. Mitra, J. that considerations for rejecting an application for grant of stage carriage permit albeit temporary under Section 62 should be governed by the principles laid down by Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act
The relevant provisions of Section 47 of the said Act read as follows:--
'57 (1) A Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an application for a stage carriage permit, have regard to the following matters, namely:--
(a) The interests of the public generally;
(e) The operation by the applicant of other transport services, including those in respect of which applications from him for permits are pending;
Rule 57-A of the Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 provides as follows:--
'57-A (1) When applications for a permitin respect of a stage carriage or a contractcarriage have been received from a personholding one or more permits in any one ormore regions, areas or routes and from aperson having no such permit, other conditions being equal, preference shall be givento the latter.
In my view the factors that have to be considered in granting a temporary permit shall also include the factors laid down in the Act and the Rules framed there under for granting temporary stage carriage permits.
6. It is admitted by the petitioner that the petitioner at all material times was and still now is the owner of a stage carriage permit for plying a stage carriage in route No. 76, that is to say, from Diamond Harbour to High Court, Calcutta. Possession of such permit may be one of the reasons under the Act as well as the Rules framed there under as noted earlier for refusing an application for grant of a further permit. The petitioner's application has been rejected on the very same ground. Thus, it appears that this contention of the petitioner also fails.
7. By reason of the aforesaid, this application must fail and is dismissed. The Rule Nisi is discharged. In the facts and circumstances of the case I do not, however, make any order as to costs.