13.01.2026 Ct. no.10 Sl. Nos. 8-10 b.r. WPA 29949 of 2025 Debasis Mondal & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. With WPA 22827 of 2025 Priyank Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. With WPA 22831 of 2025 Debasis Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Arkadipta Sengupta Mr. Tirthankar Dey Mr. Ria Naskar Ms. Ankita Ghosh …. For the petitioner in all the writ petitions. Mr. Pantu Deb Roy, Ld. AGP Mr. Subrata Guha Biswas ….. for the State for the State in WPA 22827 of 2025 and WPA 29949 of 2025. Mr. Tanmoy Kr. Ghosh Mr. Bikash Goswami …. For the State. In Re: WPA 29949 of 2025. 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court, is taken on record. 2. The petitioner in the instant writ petition runs a transport business by obtaining two valid Stage 2 Carriage Permit from the Regional Transport Authority, Hooghly for the route Haripal to Udaynarayanpur. The permit has been issued to the petitioner in the year 2022 which remains valid till April 22, 2028. 3. Main grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the time table for plying the vehicles (Bus) for route no.9 and 9A as approved by the respondent no.2 in supersession of all previous time tables. 4. The petitioner in the said route is an existing operator and has been plying his vehicle on rotational basis. A proposed time table at page- 232 has been relied upon at the time of hearing before the respondent No. 2 but the same has not been taken into consideration. 5. The respondent no.2 decided to fix and approve the time table in supersession of all previous time table for one month, i.e. up to 24.10.2025, in the interest of public which has been renewed time to time accordingly. 6. Due to the fixation of the provisional time table as approved by the respondent no.2, the petitioner is facing inconvenience since the same is not economically viable. 7. The petitioner submits that the proposed time table has been fixed and approved without taking 3 into consideration the time table as proposed by the operators. 8. The petitioner further submits that the time table issued by the respondent no.2 is not inconsonance with the proposed time table given by the petitioner. 9. The State respondent submits that the proposed time table which has been approved is for the interest of the commuters at large for the said route in question. 10. Having heard the parties and on the basis of the available materials on record, I direct the respondent no.2 to revisit and re-consider the representation dated 26.08.2025 being annexure p-3 at page-29 to the writ petition on 26.02.2026 at 12 Noon by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of 2 weeks upon affording an opportunity of hearing to all the interested parties along with the petitioner. Such decision shall be communicated to all the parties within a week thereafter. 11. A notice of hearing shall be served upon all the interested parties including the petitioner by mentioning the date and time of hearing. 12. It is made clear that all the intending parties and the existing operators are directed to ply their 4 vehicle as per the existing time table till the final decision is taken by the respondent no.2. 13. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition, WPA 29949 of 2025 stands disposed of without going into the merits of the case. In Re:- WPA 22827 of 2025 & WPA 22831 of 2025 14. In view of the above observations made in WPA 29949 of 2025, both the writ petitions, WPA 22827 of 2025 & WPA 22831 of 2025 stand disposed of without going into the merits of the case. 15. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously. (Smita Das De, J.)