WPA 24526 of 2024 8.1.2025 Abdul Fattar Koyal.-vs—Ayosha Ravi & Ors. ct.25, sl.10 sk Mr. Swattik Bhattacharyya Mr. Aashutosh Bhattacharyya ….for the petitioner. Mr. Pantu Deb Roy, Ld. APG Mr. Subrata Guha Biswas …for the State The petitioner is aggrieved as to the grant of renewal of permit to the respondent no. 4 on the ground of illegality having been made in the said process. The writ petitioner is the existing operator of the route, who has challenged renewal of replacement of vehicle by the respondent no. 4 on the grounds as follows. Firstly, that the respondent no. 4 after entering into the government service would not be eligible for grant of permit any further. Secondly, the respondent no. 4 has not come up for renewal of permit since after expiry of the validity period of the earlier permit on January 12, 2020. Next is that in place of the respondent no. 4 i.e. the original permit holder, the respondent no. 5 has applied on September 13, 2023 for renewal of permit by replacing his own vehicle, in place of the earlier vehicle which was being plied as against the previous permit. 2 Thus, renewal of permit in favour of the respondent no. 4 as against the vehicle No. WB- 41F/8840, registered in the name of respondent no. 5, have been challenged in the present writ petition. Report is submitted by the respondent no. 3, which is taken on record. According to the same, there is no infirmity in the process of grant of renewal of the permit of the respondent no. 4, who applied for renewal, duly and with the requisite statutory late fine. Thus, renewal of permit has been granted in his favour with the permission to replace his vehicle, in accordance with law. It appears that there are contradictions as regards the contentions of the parties as to who has applied for grant of renewal of permit on September 13, 2023. To that effect, the petitioner has made elaborate representation before the respondent /Regional Transport Authority, Purba Burdwan on October 30, 2023 which is yet to be decided by the said authority. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that the respondent no. 2 be directed to consider and decide upon the objection raised by the present writ petition by dint of its representation dated October 30, 2023 as regards the alleged illegality and impropriety in allowing renewal of permit to the respondent no. 4. 3 Let it be noted here that in spite of service of notice neither the respondent no. 4 nor respondent no. 5 appear in this case. However, the respondent no. 2 is directed to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent nos. 4 & 5, if available, before deciding as regards the allegations of the petitioner in the said representation. Let it pass a reasoned order after hearing all the parties and within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of copy of this order. Be it mentioned that in the meantime, the directions made by the Court in its order dated December 9, 2024 shall remain operative. With the above observations and directions the writ petition being WPA 24526 of 2024 is disposed of. Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the petition are deemed to have been denied by the respondents including the private respondents. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.) 4