Form No. J (2) In The High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi M.A.T. 1975 of 2025 IA NO: CAN/1/2025 CAN/2/2025 The State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Abhishek Kumar Singh & Anr. with M.A.T. 2011 of 2025 IA NO: CAN/1/2025 CAN/2/2025 The State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Abhishek Kumar Singh For the Appellants : Mr. Dibasish Basu, Ld. A.G.P. Ms. Sneha Dutta, Advocate Mr. Purnendu Das, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sattwik Bhattacharyya, Advocate Mr. Aashutosh Bhattacharyya, Advocate Mr. Titas Niyogi, Advocate Mr. Aritra Roy, Advocate MAT 1975 of 2025 with MAT 2011 of 2025 2 Heard on : 07.07.2026 Judgment on : 07.072026 DEANGSU BASAK, J.:- 1. CAN/2/2025 is an application for condonation of delay. 2. For the ends of justice, causes shown in the application for condonation of delay are accepted as sufficient. 3. CAN/2/2025 is allowed. 4. Two appeals are taken up for analogous hearing as issues involved are same. Parties are also same. 5. Writ petitioner applied for grant of Stage Carriage Permit on the interstate route Howrah and Ranchi (B-94). Such application is yet to be finally decided. 6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, State Transport Authority considered the existing vacancy in terms of the interstate agreement. He submits that, initially, a private operator was granted Stage Carriage Permit for such route. Such grant was set aside by the order dated March 3, 2025 passed in WPA 28780 of 2024. He submits that the appeal being MAT 1975 of 2025 is directed against such order of the learned Single Judge. MAT 1975 of 2025 with MAT 2011 of 2025 3 7. So far as MAT 2011 of 2025 is concerned, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, the authorities considered the application of the writ petitioner afresh. Authorities passed an order dated July 18, 2025. Such order was challenged by way of a writ petition being WPA 14037 of 2025. Such order is under challenge in the appeal being MAT 2011 of 2025. 8. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, the authorities took decisions based on the materials made available on record. He submits that, such decisions being plausible the Writ Court erred in interfering with the same. 9. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, there exists Inter-State Reciprocal Transport agreement between the State of West Bengal and Jharkhand. B-94 is one of the routes governed by such agreement. Such route is between Howrah and Ranchi. He submits that, there is one vacancy in such route. Writ petitioner applied for grant of Stage Carriage Permit in respect of such route. He draws the attention of the Court to the application for grant of such permit. He submits that, such application was made on October 9, 2023. Subsequently, another application was made on September 3, 2024. 10. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that first application was rejected on the ground of no vacancy. There was vacancy MAT 1975 of 2025 with MAT 2011 of 2025 4 when the second application was made. There is no dispute that, there exists a vacancy in such route. He submits that, the second application was not appropriately considered resulting the writ petitioner filing the first writ petition being WPA 28780 of 2024. He submits that, the learned Judge allowed such writ petition by an order dated March 3, 2025 by directing the authorities to process the issuance of fresh permit considering the respective merits of their application. He submits that, subsequent to the order dated March 3, 2025, the authorities passed an order dated May 20, 2025. He draws the attention of the Court to such order. He submits that, the authorities did not consider the application for grant of Stage Carriage Permit. Rather, the authorities directed fresh online application after declaration. 11. Learned advocate for the writ petition submits that, being aggrieved by the decision dated May 20, 2025, the writ petitioner filed a second writ petition being WPA 14037 of 2025. Such writ petition was allowed by the order dated July 18, 2025 setting aside the decision dated May 20, 2025. The Board of State Transport Authority was directed to consider the application pending before it strictly in accordance with the order dated March 3, 2025 passed in WPA 28780 of 2024. He submits that, the authorities are yet to comply with the direction contained in the order dated July 18, 2025. MAT 1975 of 2025 with MAT 2011 of 2025 5 12. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner relies upon 2026 INSC 175 (Mahendra Prasad Agarwal vs. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.) and submits that, when repeated applications remains unresolved at the behest of the authorities the Court can direct grant of the relief of the writ petitioner. He submits that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, application for grant of Stage Carriage Permit be allowed by the Court instead of requiring the State Transport Authority to consider the second application once more. 13. Learned advocate for the writ petitioner submits that, the resolution dated May 20, 2025 which was set aside by the order dated July 18, 2025 records that there were four applicants. He submits that apart from the writ petitioner no other applicants turned up or fulfils the criteria. 14. We are concerned with the application for grant of Stage Carriage Permit in the two appeals. Petitioner applied for State Carriage Permit for the B- 94 in the Howrah-Ranchi in terms of the Inter-State Reciprocal Transport agreement between the State of West Bengal and Jharkhand. 15. First application of the writ petitioner dated October 9, 2023 was rejected on the ground of no vacancy. Apparently, that is the accepted position as on the date of such decision. 16. Vacancy for the concerned route was declared on August 27, 2024. The writ petitioner applied for grant of Stage Carriage Permit for the concerned MAT 1975 of 2025 with MAT 2011 of 2025 6 route on September 3, 2024. The second application was considered by the State Transport Authority when they purported to apply “First In and First Out” policy. On such principle, the application of the writ petitioner was rejected by the State Transport Authority West Bengal on September 20, 2024. This decision of the State Transport Authority dated September 20, 2024 was assailed by the writ petitioner in WPA 28780 of 2024. The decision dated September 20, 2024 passed by the State Transport Authority was set aside by the order dated March 3, 2025 passed in WPA 28780 of 2024. 17. By the order dated March 3, 2025, the learned Judge, directed the authorities to start the process of issuance of permitting considering the respective merits of their applications on the basis of the relevant materials submitted by the respective incumbents and also other ancillary factors. 18. Purporting to act on the basis of such order dated March 3, 2025 passed in WPA 28780 of 2024, State Transport Authority by a resolution dated May 20, 2025 held that, the offer letter issued in favour of the Shyamal Mukherjee was no-longer valid. It decided to permit all applicants to apply afresh after declaration of vacancy in the route. 19. Vacancy already declared on August 27, 2024 continues to remain. Question of declaration of fresh vacancy does not arise and at best there MAT 1975 of 2025 with MAT 2011 of 2025 7 may be other vacancies. The vacancy declared on August 27, 2024 is governed by the order dated March 3, 2025. 20. So far as the vacancy declared on August 27, 2024 is concerned, such vacancy required to be filled up as filling up of such vacancy is in public interest. Route is from Howrah to Ranchi. It is not the case of any of the parties before us that, there are no passengers in such route. 21. We do not find any infirmity in the order dated March 3, 2025 passed in WPA 28780 of 2024. Such order required State Transport Authority to assess and evaluate the applicants on the basis of merits taking into all factors into consideration and in accordance with law. 22. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal being MAT 1975 of 2025 filed by the appellants directed against the order dated March 3, 2025. Moreover, the appellants themselves acted in terms of the order dated March 3, 2025 and passed a subsequent resolution dated May 20, 2025. 23. In the second round of litigation being WPA 14037 of 2025, learned Single Judge set aside the resolution dated May 20, 2025 and required the State Transport Authority to act strictly in terms of the order dated March 3, 2025. 24. Again, on the parity of the reasoning as noted above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order dated July 18, 2025. MAT 1975 of 2025 with MAT 2011 of 2025 8 25. The resolution dated May 20, 2025 which was set aside by the order dated July 18, 2025 recorded that, the initial allottee, did not act in terms of such allotment and that, the allotment elapsed by efflux of time. The resolution dated May 20, 2025 however, notes that, there were four applicants. One applicant is noted above did not fulfill the conditions of the initial allotment and therefore, the allotment in his favour was held to be elapsed by efflux of time. Apart from writ petitioner there are two other applicants. 26. The contention that, the other two applicants apart from writ petitioner noted in the resolution dated May 20, 2025 did not fulfill the requirements is required to be evaluated on the basis of the materials as placed before us in the two appeals. We are not in a position to arrive at a finding that, it is the writ petitioner only who fulfills all criteria for the Stage Carriage Permit. We hasten to add we are not pronouncing on the fulfillment of the criteria of any of the applicants including the writ petitioner for grant of Stage Carriage Permit. Such issue is kept open to be decided by State Transport Authority. 27. In view of the such finding, we are not minded to apply the ratio of Mahendra Prasad Agarwal (supra) where noting the repeated infractions of the authorities direction was issued for compliance. MAT 1975 of 2025 with MAT 2011 of 2025 9 28. In such circumstances, we dispose of the two appeals by directing the State Transport Authority to consider the application for grant of Stage Carriage Permit of the writ petitioner dated September 3, 2025 in accordance with law in the ensuing Board meeting of the State Transport Authority without fail. The State Transport Authority will afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. It will pass a reasoned order which it will communicate to the writ petitioner forthwith thereafter. 29. MAT 1975 of 2025, MAT 2011 of 2025 along with connected applications are disposed of. (Debangsu Basak, J.) 30. I agree. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.) CHC CHINMOY CHAKRABORTY Digitally signed by CHINMOY CHAKRABORTY Date: 2026.07.08 15:33:39 +05'30'