1. Leave granted.
2. The first respondent, Anil Kumar Panda obtained a stage carriage permit in a joint endeavour made by the Regional Transport Authorities of Howrah and Midnapore wherein was incorporated a direction as to the night halt. Since this fetter was not acceptable to the first respondent, he moved the High Court of Calcutta in writ proceedings. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed his writ petition relegating him to his ordinary remedies under the law and undeniably, one such remedy was to file an appeal against the said order of the Regional Transport Authorities before the Appellate Tribunal established under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989. Instead of availing of the same, the first respondent took the matter in letters patent appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench in a manner directed the Regional Transport Authorities of Howrah and Midnapore to hold a joint conference and deliberate over the matter so as to render decision on various aspects of the matter such as the rotational night haltage, fixation of timetable, the rhythm of trips, the turn of the respective transporters etc., etc. The instant matter has been brought to this Court by an aggrieved party challenging the said order of the Division Bench of the High Court.
3. This Court issued notice and ordered status quo to be maintained. Later it transpired that the aforementioned two authorities had finally met to deliberate on the questions referred to them by the High Court and were about to decide the same on 15-9-1996, but refrained themselves from doing so because of the status quo order. That order was clarified by us on 3-2-1997 giving liberty to the said authorities to pronounce on the matter. Further it was required that a copy of the final order of those authorities be placed on record of this Court, which has accordingly been done. The deliberations of these two authorities has left the appellant aggrieved.
4. The exercise before the High Court was only towards streamlining the competing claims of the parties on matters aforementioned and towards that effort, the High Court had clearly provided in its order the manner in which the state of affairs were to continue on ad hoc basis, subject to the determinations when made by the authorities in terms of the order of the High Court- Now, since that effort has fructified, the operable part of the order of the High Court with regard to the plying of buses is no longer sustaining and it is the order now passed on joint deliberations of the two authorities which determines the method of the plying of the vehicles. If anybody is aggrieved by the said joint order, he is at liberty to move the appellate authority to question the same. And in that sense, the orders of the Single Bench restrictedly, in spirit, get restored inasmuch as one or the other party has to avail of its ordinary remedies in an appropriate forum. Having observed so, we put the matter to rest leaving the person aggrieved to proceed in appeal before the appellate court/tribunal. Any observations made by the High Court towards laying down the method of plying of the vehicles is not meant to be taken as final for that was an interim arrangement till the joint deliberations of the two authorities would have come to govern the subject. To this extent, the orders of the High Court stand modified, enabling the aggrieved parties to move the matter in appeal. The appeal thus stands disposed of. No costs.