Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 41144 (CAL)

SANTANU MAITY v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/23609/2026 · 2026-09-15

Dinesh Kumar Sharma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

W.P.A. 23609 OF 2026 15.09.2026 Santanu Maity Sl no. 16 - Vs – Ct no. 2 The State of West Bengal & Ors. P.M. Mr. N.I. Khan Mr. Dilip Kr. Mondal ... for the Petitioner. Mr. Sovan Mukherjee, Ms. Tanusree Ghosh ... for the State 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was granted permit for plying the vehicle from Digha to Kolkata CBT and from Deulihat to Howrah. 2. Learned counsel submits that State Transport authority also prescribed time-table, however, time-table prescribed by the petitioner clashes with the time-table provided to private respondent No. 5. 3. Learned counsel submits that this is causing inconvenience not only to the petitioner but also to the general public and the similar time- table may also cause vehicular accident. 4. Learned counsel submits that Purba Medinipur District Bus Owners Association made a representation dated 20th July, 2026 to the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Paribahan Bhavan and this was followed by the representation made by the petitioner on 3rd August, 2026. However, learned counsel submits that the authorities have not responded to such representations. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that as per instruction the State Transport authority shall consider the representations expeditiously in accordance with law after giving parties an opportunity of being heard. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that would be satisfied if the representations are decided in accordance with law expeditiously. 7. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the State Transport Authority is directed to decide the representations within four weeks of the receipt of this order in accordance with law after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard. 8. The State Transport Authority shall communicate the decision within two weeks of passing of such order. 9. With this observation this petition stands disposed of. 2 10. Since affidavit has not been filed by the respondents any averments or allegations made in the writ petition are not deemed to have been admitted. 11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all usual requisite formalities (Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.) 3