The Calcutta High Court has directed the Transport Department to consider a petitioner's request for regularization of an auto-rickshaw operating on an unauthorized route, invoking a 'one-time regularization' scheme. This judgment underscores the balance between unauthorized operation and administrative discretion in permit allocation, while emphasizing procedural fairness in permit regularization processes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Md. Islam Ansari, owns an auto-rickshaw (Permit No. PCOPA935 A/R, Registration No. WB11B4964) registered on 16.06.2010. The permit covers rural areas of Howrah District, excluding Howrah and Bally Municipal Areas, and was valid from 27.08.2023 to 26.08.2023. Despite holding a valid permit for a specified route, the petitioner has been operating the vehicle on the Howrah Maidan to Salkia route for over 20 years without authorization.
Key Facts
- The petitioner's auto-rickshaw details: Chassis No. MD6M14LK1A4D04791, Engine No. OK4DA1008768
- The petitioner submitted a request on 18.01.2023 to incorporate the unauthorized route into his permit, which remained pending
- On 13.01.2025, the petitioner obtained information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, revealing a route-wise survey for regularization based on "actual plying"
- The State contended that the petitioner was operating illegally on the unauthorized route
- The Transport Department Notification No. 1111WT dated 21.03.2023 enhanced fleet strength on existing routes
- A one-time regularization scheme was introduced vide Notification No. 3944-WT/3M-01/2010(pt-II) dated 14.08.2018, allowing unauthorized auto-rickshaws operating continuously since 31.03.2019 within Howrah Police Commissionerate jurisdiction to apply for regularization, subject to permit limits and prescribed conditions
Procedural History
- 18.01.2023: Petitioner submitted a representation to incorporate the unauthorized route into his permit
- 13.01.2025: Petitioner filed an RTI application seeking details of the regularization process
- 29.02.2024: Fleet strength enhancement notification issued by the Transport Department
- 2025: Writ Petition (WPA 8974 of 2025) filed before the Calcutta High Court seeking regularization of unauthorized operation
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Regularization of the unauthorized operation of his auto-rickshaw on the Howrah Maidan to Salkia route
- Consideration of his 18.01.2023 representation under the one-time regularization scheme
- Direction to the Transport Department to pass a reasoned order after affording a hearing
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Transport Department could deny the petitioner's request for regularization under the one-time regularization scheme, despite the enhancement of fleet strength and the petitioner's long-standing unauthorized operation, without affording a hearing and passing a reasoned order.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner relied on Notification No. 3944-WT/3M-01/2010(pt-II) dated 14.08.2018, which provided a one-time regularization opportunity for auto-rickshaws operating unauthorizedly but continuously since 31.03.2019
- The petitioner argued that the fleet strength enhancement vide Notification No. 1111WT dated 21.03.2023 created a legitimate expectation for regularization
- The petitioner contended that the State's refusal to consider his representation without a hearing violated principles of natural justice
For the State
- The State submitted that the petitioner was operating illegally on the unauthorized route, contrary to the permit's specified route
- The State argued that no vacancies existed under the enhanced fleet strength to accommodate the petitioner's request
- The State contended that the one-time regularization scheme was subject to permit limits and could not be invoked arbitrarily
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that while the petitioner's operation on the unauthorized route was technically illegal, the Transport Department had introduced a one-time regularization scheme to address such cases. The Court emphasized that administrative authorities must balance legal compliance with practical realities, particularly when unauthorized operations have persisted for an extended period.
The Court noted that the fleet strength enhancement indicated the Transport Department's intent to regularize existing operations, albeit within prescribed limits. The Court held that the petitioner's representation could not be dismissed summarily without affording a hearing and passing a reasoned order, as this would violate the principles of natural justice.
"After careful consideration, I direct the respondent no. 2 to consider the representation dated 18.01.2023 in light of the notification dated 29.02.2024 within a period of 10 weeks. The authority shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, upon affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other stakeholders if any, and communicate such decision within a week thereafter."
The Court further clarified that if any vacancies arose or remained unfilled after the fleet strength enhancement, the Transport Department must take necessary steps to fill them in accordance with the law.
The Verdict
The Calcutta High Court disposed of the writ petition (WPA 8974 of 2025) with the following directions:
- The Transport Department (Respondent No. 2) must consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.01.2023 within 10 weeks from the date of the judgment
- The authority must pass a reasoned order after affording a hearing to the petitioner and other stakeholders, if any
- The decision must be communicated to the petitioner within one week of passing the order
- If any vacancies arise or remain unfilled after the fleet strength enhancement, the Transport Department must fill them in accordance with the law
The Court refrained from adjudicating the merits of the case, leaving the final decision to the Transport Department.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Fairness in Administrative Decisions
- Hearing and Reasoned Order: Administrative authorities cannot dismiss representations summarily. They must afford a hearing and pass a reasoned order, failing which the decision may be challenged on grounds of natural justice
- Opportunity for Regularization: Where schemes like one-time regularization are introduced, authorities must consider representations in their light, even if the operation was initially unauthorized
Balancing Legal Compliance and Practical Realities
- Unauthorized Operation: While unauthorized operation remains illegal, courts may direct consideration of regularization schemes where such operations have persisted for long durations
- Fleet Strength Limits: Regularization is subject to permit limits and fleet strength. Practitioners must argue how vacancies or enhancements may accommodate their clients' requests
Strategic Use of RTI in Transport Disputes
- RTI as Evidence: Information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 can be crucial in establishing the existence of schemes, surveys, or notifications relevant to the dispute
- Survey-Based Regularization: Where regularization is based on "actual plying" or route-wise surveys, practitioners should gather evidence of long-standing unauthorized operation to strengthen their case
