WP(C) 6267/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE UB SAHA The petitioner in this writ petition is the registered owner of a 32 seater bu s bearing registration No. AS-11/AC-3298 and he filed this petition for a direct ion to the respondents, particularly the respondent No.3 to countersign and to e xecute the road permit issued by the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Assa m, respondent No. 2 in terms of the bilateral agreement between the State of Ass am and the State of Tripura along with the interim prayer for allowing him to ru n the bus from Silchar to Dharmanagar vial Karimganj. Heard Mr. AM Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. MR Pa thak, learned Standing counsel for the respondent No.3. The facts needed to be discussed are as follows : The petitioner is the registered owner of the bus (Supra) and he applied for a r oad permit to the respondent No.4 to run his bus from Silchar to Dharmanagar via Karimganj. As per his prayer, the respondent No.4 issued a road permit on 21.8. 10 which shall remain valid up to 20.11.10 and the same has to be countersigned by the State Transport Authority, Tripura but the same has not been done. Ultima tely, the respondent No.2 requested the Secretary, Tripura State Transport Autho rity to countersign the permit but the State Transport Authority, Tripura did no t pay any heed to the said request. Hence this writ petition. Mr. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, while urging for the relief s ought for would contend that the Secretary, Tripura State Transport Authority is legally bound to countersign the permit issued by the respondent No.2 in favour of the petitioner as there is a bilateral agreement between the State of Assam and State of Tripura. He further urges that for non action of the Tripura State Transport Authority the petitioner is deprived from running his bus in the pro posed road and as a result his livelihood is also affected. On the other hand, Mr. Pathak, learned Standing counsel, State of Tripura submits that it would be better for the petitioner to approach the Secretary, Tripura State Transport Au thority. Learned Standing counsel Mr. Pathak further submits that this writ peti tion itself is not maintainable on the ground that the State Transport Authority , Tripura has not been made a party whose Secretary is bound to countersign the aforesaid permit as alleged as per the agreement. However, ultimately considerin g the difficulty of the petitioner, Mr. Pathak submits that the petition should not be thrown away only on the technical ground as the court is established for substantial justice. He also submits that it would be better to ask the petition er to file a representation to the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Tripura so that the said authority can consider his prayer in accordance with law and a lso can countersign his permit issued by the Secretary, State Transport Authorit y, Assam. Upon going through the record, it appears that the permit, which was issued on 21.8.10, was subsequently renewed by the authority and the said permit is valid up to 20.2.11. In that view of the matter, this court is of the opinion that it would meet ends of justice if the writ petition is disposed of with the simple direction to the petitioner to file a representation before the Secretary, Tripu ra State Transport Authority, within a period of seven days raising all his gri evances along with this order and the Secretary, Tripura State Transport Authori ty, shall consider and dispose of the said representation within a period of fif teen days from the date of receipt of the representation by a reasoned order con sidering the facts that the validity of the permit is going to be expired on 21. 2.11. It is needless to say that if the petitioner fulfills the condition then the aut hority should consider his representation with a humane touch and countersign th e same. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to cost.