Dn 16 and 16/1 Bus Syndicate Vs Subrata Karmakar and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Dn 16 and 16/1 Bus Syndicate Vs Subrata Karmakar and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed: the Hon'ble Single Judge's order staying operation of the RTA Resolution dated 20.11.2024 set aside; appellant permitted to apply for impleadment in the writ proceedings within two weeks, failing which the writ court may proceed in its absence; no opinion expressed on merits; writ petitioner at liberty to seek interim relief after the appellant's appearance.

Issue for consideration

Whether, in the absence of the present appellant — beneficiary of the Resolution of the Regional Transport Authority and not a party to the writ petition — the order of the learned Single Judge staying the operation of the Resolution could stand.

Court's answer

The answer to the limited issue — whether the order could be stayed in the absence of the appellant-beneficiary — is in the negative.

Ratio / Principle

The order of the Hon'ble Single Judge staying the operation of the Resolution dated 20.11.2024 is set aside, without going into the rights of the parties or the contentions regarding the Resolution being legal or illegal.

Key takeaways

The present appellant is permitted to make an application for impleadment in the writ proceedings.ratio¶21
The impleadment application must be filed within two weeks, failing which the writ court may proceed in absence of the present appellant.ratio¶21
The Court expressly states that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival submissions.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

In M.A.T. 129 of 2025 (Madhuresh Prasad, J. and Supratim Bhattacharya, J.), the appeal by DN-16 & 16/1 Bus Syndicate was allowed and the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge staying the operation of the Resolution dated 20.11.2024 of the Regional Transport Authority Board, Kolkata region was set aside. The Resolution had modified route no. DN 16/1 (existing route from Hudco More, Ultadanga to Chingrighata via PNB, Karunamoyee and SDF Building) over approximately 4 kms. via Kadapara, Bengal Chemical and Bellaghata. The appellant, the beneficiary of the enlargement of the route, had not been made a party to the writ petition and the stay operated behind its back; the Court held that the order could not be stayed in the appellant's absence, deciding this limited issue without examining the legality of the Resolution or the rival rights. The appellant was permitted to seek impleadment within two weeks, failing which the writ court may proceed without it; no opinion was expressed on the merits, and the writ petitioner remains at liberty to pray for interim relief after the appellant's appearance.

Ct. No.4 D/L-4 12.03.2025 (Naba)

M.A.T. 129 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025 CAN 2 of 2025

DN-16 & 16/1 Bus Syndicate Vs. Subrata Karmakar & Ors.

Mr. Sankar Nath Mukherjee, Mr. Niraj Gupta, Ms. Manisha Paswan

...for the Petitioner

Mr. Pantu Deb Roy, ld. A.G.P. Mr. P. Goswami

...for the State

Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, Mr. Neil Basu ...for the Writ Petitioner/Respondent

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The Regional Transport Authority Board, Kolkata region has taken a Resolution on 20^th November, 2024. The effect of the Resolution is that the existing route from Hudco More, Ultadanga to Chingrighata via PNB, Karunamoyee and SDF Building has been modified over a span of approximately 4 kms. via Kadapara, Bengal Chemical and Bellaghata. This is the modification in respect of the route no. DN 16/1.

The same was assailed by the private respondent represented today by Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy. According to him, the extension is illegal and not according to the procedure prescribed and ignoring the earlier Notification dated 11.02.2025.

2

The present appeal has been filed against an order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge staying the operation of the Resolution of the Regional Transport Authority which adversely effects the rights of the present appellant insofar as the enlargement of the route was in their favour. They, however, were not parties to the writ petition and the order has been stayed behind their back.

4.

5.

The learned counsel for the private respondent has vehemently submitted that the modification is unsustainable in law. Therefore, the same is required to be set aside. He submits that staying of such resolution which is illegal need not be interfered by this Court.

The limited issue arising before us and which we propose to consider is that in absence of the present appellant who was beneficiary of the Resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, could the order be stayed?

We are of the opinion that the answer to such a query would be in the negative. Without going into the rights of the parties; and the contentions regarding the Resolution being legal or illegal, we set aside the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge staying the operation of the Resolution dated 20.11.2024.

3

We permit the present appellant to make his application for impleadment in the writ proceedings. The application must be filed within 02 (two) weeks, failing which, we are of the opinion that the writ court may proceed in absence of the present appellant.

The appeal stands allowed in the above terms.

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival submissions.

The Writ Petitioner would be at liberty to make any prayer for interim relief after appearance of the present appellant, as above.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)