The Calcutta High Court has issued an order, instructing the State's Transport Department to make public all available routes and permit opportunities for operating auto-rickshaws in the state. This directive aims to promote transparency in the allocation process for these permits.

In a decision to reject an appeal against a single-bench ruling that declined to intervene in the allocation of auto rickshaw permits for the Howrah-Don Bosco, Liluah route, a division bench comprising Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Supratim Bhattacharya maintained the following: “There may be some substance into individual grievances raised by the petitioners. If the same is entertained, they would not upset a number of awarded permits on a particular route, but could also deprive existing permit holders of rights. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment [but] directs that henceforth all vacancies in any permit on any route would be indicated and published on the website of the concerned RTA in the State.”

The petitioners contended that they had submitted applications for auto-rickshaw route permits on the Howrah-Don Bosco, Liluah route in 2018, and asserted that their applications were rejected in violation of the law.

It was argued that during the allocation of the 150 advertised vacancies, the petitioners were deemed to be "within the zone of consideration." However, they were overlooked, and permits were granted to individuals who were ranked lower than them.

The petitioners contended that a notification regarding subsequent vacancies under Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act was insufficient and did not comply with the provisions of Section 23 of the General Clauses Act, which mandates publication in local newspapers. As a result, the notification did not come to the attention of the petitioners.

The petitioners asserted that they had been unjustly prevented from conducting their trade and alleged that individuals with favourable connections to the ruling government had been awarded permits.

The state contended that before 2018, a significant number of permits for operating auto rickshaws had been allocated on a regional basis.

It was argued that through a subsequent government notification, specific routes were delineated, and a limited number of permits were made available for each of these routes. This posed challenges in filling the route-specific vacancies because existing permit holders were situated within the newly defined routes.

The state contended that to prevent existing permit holders from being deprived of their rights, a certain number of these holders were issued formal permits to continue their trade within the framework of the new route-specific system.

The argument put forth was that after the aforementioned vacancies were filled, the petitioner's applications were evaluated. Nevertheless, there were numerous other applicants for the same route, resulting in no available space for the petitioners to be accommodated.

The court acknowledged that the State's arguments, as presented, had already been considered in the lower court. Additionally, the court found that the writ petitioners had intentionally and willingly decided not to contest these arguments. As a result, the court deemed the issue to have become "academic."

Consequently, in its directive to the State to ensure transparency in the allocation of route permits for auto-rickshaws, the Court concluded and disposed of the plea.