24.06.2025 Sl. No. 02 g.b. Court No.551 W.P.A. 14485 of 2024 With CAN 1 of 2024 Ashis Bandopadhaya -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Ayan Mitra ….For the Petitioner Mr. Pantu Deb Roy Mr. Pannalal Bandopadhyay ….For the State The petitioner complains of illegalities on the part of the respondents Transport Authorities and submits that the petitioner has been deprived of auto rickshaw permit for plying auto rickshaw on the route (AR-3) from Howrah Station to Donbosco while granting permits to certain other persons on the same route. The petitioner invites the attention of this Court to the document annexed at page 10 of the writ petition to show that the petitioner had paid fees in respect of an application requesting for grant of permit on the aforesaid route and that in connection therewith the petitioner was called for a hearing on February 18, 2020 by a letter dated January 24, 2020. The petitioner submits that despite the application having been made as far as back as on January 2, 2019, the authorities took cognizance of the matter one year later and the petitioner’s request was declined ultimately by a letter dated February 25, 2021. The petitioner also invites the attention of this Court to another letter dated July 12, 2022 whereby the petitioner’s application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 was disposed of by informing the petitioner that no application for grant auto rickshaw permit on the route (AR-3) from Howrah Station to Donbosco had been allowed in the Board meeting held during the period 2019 to 2022. Along with the said reply under the Right to Information Act, 2005 the petitioner was also supplied a copy of the decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting held on February 15, 2022 whereby the petitioner’s application for issuance of permit in respect of route no. AR-3 was rejected on the ground of unavailability of vacancy. 2 The petitioner has impugned the said letter dated March 21, 2022 whereby the petitioner’s application seeking auto rickshaw permit was declined. It is evident that the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the aforesaid letter dated March 21, 2022 after expiry of about two years from the date of receipt thereof. There is no explanation in the writ petition as to why the petitioner has approached the Writ Court so late. It is settled law that although no period of limitation is provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet the period within which a suit should have been filed for the same to be entertained by a competent Civil Court would ordinarily, be taken to be the period within which an applicant/litigant should approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (see State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bhailal Bhai reported at AIR 1964 SC 1006). 3 The order dated March 21, 2022 is an order passed by a Government Authority and the period of limitation prescribed for institution of a suit challenging an order passed by an Government Authority is one year from the date of passing thereof in terms of Article 100 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhailal Bhai (supra), this writ petition cannot be entertained as the same is inordinately delayed and there is no explanation for the delay. WPA 14485 of 2024 stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The application being CAN 1 of 2024 is wrongly appearing in the list as the same has already been disposed of by order dated March 03, 2025. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties or urgent basis after completion of all necessary formalities. (Om Narayan Rai, J.) 4