Disposed

Shri. S. Niju v. the Secretary, State Transport Authority and Ors.

Calcutta HC10 Sept 2021WPA/130/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair, found the writ petition to be infructuous as the petitioner had been granted a fresh stage carriage permit and was operating the vehicle. The cause of action had elapsed, and the interim order was vacated before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The interim order was vacated and the writ petition disposed of without any other order being passed.

Shri. S. Niju Vs the Secretary, State Transport… — Service and Employment | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]

WPA/130/2021

S.Niju

… Petitioner

Vs.

The Secretary, State Transport Authority & others …

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

Mr.Arun S. Kumar, Advocate … for the petitioner Mr.Krishna Rao, Advocate … for the respondents

¶10

September 10, 2021 [GNC]

¶11

Item No.06

¶12

Mr.Rao, learned Government Pleader appears for the respondents and submits that the instant writ petition has become infructuous because of the subsequent events.

¶13

A writ petition was filed challenging the memorandum dated 18^th March, 2021 issued by the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Port Blair cancelling the route permit of stage carriage permit of the petitioner.

¶14

It was contended in the writ petition that the stage carriage permit was issued initially on 30^th May, 2017 which was extended from time to time upto 31^st March, 2021. Unfortunately, on 24^th February, 2021 the vehicle met with an accident and a notice to show cause was issued on March 04, 2021 upon the petitioner as to why the stage carriage permit should not be cancelled in view of the provision contained in sub-section (1) of Rule 86 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The petitioner replied to the show

¶15

¶16

cause with a prayer not to take any coercive action against him.

¶17

By the impugned memorandum the authority concerned cancelled the stage carriage permit with immediate effect and directed the petitioner to surrender the vehicle. When the writ petition was moved on April 6, 2021 the coordinate Bench observed that the clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (1) of section 86 and the proviso inserted thereto are not applicable to the events as enumerated therein as the vehicle met with an accident and therefore, the decision to permanently cancel the stage carriage permit is beyond the ambit of the aforesaid provision. The coordinate bench stayed the operation of the impugned memorandum dated 18^th March, 2021 and directed the respondents to file affidavit in opposition.

¶18

It is uniformly submitted before me that pursuant to the interim order passed in the instant writ petition the vehicle was surrendered to the concerned authority who later on issued a fresh stage carriage permit to the petitioner extending the period of the stage carriage permit and the petitioner is running the vehicle.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid subsequent event the cause of action which accrued to the petitioner upon issuance of the memorandum dated 18^th March, 2021 has elapsed and is no longer subsisting since the writ petitioner is running the public vehicle under the stage carriage permit extended

¶20

¶21

by the respondent authorities. No further order is required to be passed in the instant writ petition.

¶22

With the above observation the writ petition is disposed of.

¶23

The interim order granted in the instant writ petition is hereby vacated.

¶24

(Harish Tandon, J. )

Shri. S. Niju v. the Secretary, State Transport Authority and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. S. Niju v. the Secretary, State Transport Authority and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Alagammai Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

M/S. Blue Chip Consultancy Service an Another Vs the Chief Engineer and Administrator and Another

Susheel Dixit Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sumitra Devi and Others Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Another

Smti. Palaniammal Vs the Honble Lt. Governor and Ors.

The Union of India and Ors. Vs Andaman Plantation and Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd.