Pratap Kumar Roy, J.@mdashHeard the learned Advocate appearing for the parties.
2. Challenging the order dated 1st December, 2006 passed by the learned Trial Judge in W.P. No. 1891 of 2006 whereby and where under the
learned Trial Judge directed grant of permit, this appeal has been preferred.
3. It appears from the writ application that the petitioner raised a grievance for non-grant of permit despite the issuance of the offer letter in the
year 2003 prior to issuance of prohibitory notification dated 6th August, 2004 prohibiting grant of any route permit touching Central Business
District namely, Esplanade, Band Stand, Howrah Station and approach areas of Howrah Bridge. The route admittedly is touching Howrah Station
and approach area of Howrah Bridge in terms of the Notification dated 6th August, 2004. Learned Trial Judge, however, allowed the writ
application and directed grant of permit.
4. Before looking into the matter of legality and validity of the judgment under appeal, it appears to us that the writ application is not maintainable in
the High Court at Calcutta as because there is a specific appeal provision in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. u/s 89, Clause (1) Sub-clause (g)
whereby and where under if someone is aggrieved by refusal to grant permit may prefer an appeal within the prescribed time-limit as mentioned
thereon. The relevant provision of the! appeal under the said Act reads such:
(g) Aggrieved by any other order which may be prescribed, may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, appeal to the State
Transport Appellate Tribunal constituted under Sub-section (2), who shall, after giving such person and the original authority an opportunity of
being heard, give a decision thereon which shall be final.
5. It is a clear of non-grant of permit. Accordingly, appeal is maintainable. Even if in the finer sense, it is considered that once the offer letter is
issued which pre-supposes a grant of permit, the only action remains is to issue permit which has been refused, still, then the writ petition is not
maintainable under such a situation in view of alternative forum order Section 90 of the said Act. The provision of revision reads such:
90. Revision. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal may, on an application made to it, call for the record of any case in which an order has been
made by a State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority against which no appeal lies, and if it appears to the*State Transport
Appellate Tribunal that the order made by the State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority is improper or illegal, the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal may pass such order in relation to the case as it deems fit and every such order shall be final:
Provided that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal shall not entertain any application from a person aggrieved by an order of a State Transport
Authority or Regional Transport Authority, unless the application is made within thirty days from the date of the order:
Provided further that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if it is
satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making the application in time:
Provided also that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal shall not pass an order under this section prejudicial to any person without giving him a
reasonable opportunity of being heard.
6. Having regard to the said statutory provision, it appears that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a complete code so far as redressal of any
grievance of any operator on issue of route permit. This redressal forum being an alternative forum is a sufficient forum. It is settled legal
proposition that when there is alternative appellate forum, avoiding such hierarchical forum of appeal under statute, writ application is not
maintainable. Reliance may be placed in the cases of Veerappa Pillai Vs. Raman and Raman Ltd. and Others, , Assistant Collector of Central
Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal Vs. Dunlop India Ltd. and Others, , Shri Ramendra Kishore Biswas Vs. The State of Tripura and Others, ,
Punjab National Bank Vs. O.C. Krishnan and Others, , U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey and Another, and Uttaranchal Forest
Development Corpn. and Another Vs. Jabar Singh and Others, .
7. Having regard to such legal proposition whereby the Apex Court has settled the law that where there is hierarchical of appeal in the statute
without exhausting that forum being a statutory remedy, writ application is not maintainable. We are of the view that writ application itself is not
maintainable and as such, writ application stands dismissed. Appeal and the application also stand disposed of accordingly. Impugned judgment
under appeal stands quashed.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment be made available to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
