1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1961 OF 2006
With
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1962 OF 2006
State of West Bengal & Ors. ... Appellants
Vs.
S. K. Nurul Amin ... Respondent
JUDGMENT
R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.
These two appeals arising from order dated 27.4.2001 in MAT
No.1100 of 2001 and order dated 2.4.2001 in MAT No.586 of 2001 passed
by the Calcutta High Court, raise a common question relating to
interpretation of sub-section (1) of section 72 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(`Act’ for short).
2
2. The respondent made two applications to the State Transport
Authority, West Bengal (`Authority’ for short) for grant of permanent stage
carriage permit, the first on 7.11.1997 for a permit for the route Dhulian
Bazar to Kolkata (via Raghunathganj and Barasat), and the second on
30.11.1998 for a permit for the route Raghunathganj to Kolkata (via
Barasat). As the said applications were not disposed of, the respondent
approached the High Court by filing separate writ petitions and the said
petitions were disposed of with a direction to the Authority to consider and
dispose of the pending applications of the respondent. Thereafter, the
Authority, by communications dated 18.12.2000 and 3.11.2000, offered
permits for the routes Dhulian Bazar to Barasat and Reghunathganj to
Barasat respectively, by curtailing/excluding the last portion of the two
applied routes from Barasat to Kolkata (26 kms.).
3. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed two writ petitions which were
disposed of by a learned Single Judge by orders dated 5.3.2001 and
13.2.2001 respectively. The orders directed the Authority to consider the
applications of the respondent afresh as the communications of the Authority
did not give reasons as to why the permits were not granted up to Kolkata.
The Authority was also directed to pass reasoned orders after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the respondent.
3
4. The orders of the learned Single Judge were challenged by the
respondent by filing intra-court appeals before a Division Bench. The
Division Bench allowed the appeals by the impugned orders dated 27.4.2001
and 2.4.2001. The Division Bench noted that the routes, for which the
permits were sought, were not notified ones. The Division Bench held that
when permits were sought for the routes – Dhulian Bazar to Kolkata and
Raghunathganj to Kolkata, the Authority could not have offered permits by
curtailing the routes, thereby changing one of the termini from Kolkata to
Barasat. The division bench held that the orders of the Authority violated
Section 72(1) of the Act. The said orders are challenged in these appeals by
special leave.
5. Section 72 of the Act deals with grant of stage carriage permits. Sub-
section (1) thereof which is relevant, is extracted below :
“72. Grant of stage carriage permit.–(1) Subject to the provisions of
section 72, a Regional Transport Authority may, on an application made to
it under section 70, grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the
application or with such modifications as it deems fit or refuse to grant
such a permit;
Provided that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any route or
area not specified in the application.”
4
6. A careful reading of sub-section (1) of section 72 makes it clear that
the Authority is not bound to grant a stage carriage permit as sought. The
Authority could either grant the stage carriage permit in accordance with the
application or refuse to grant such stage carriage permit or grant the stage
carriage permit with such modifications as it deemed fit. The only restriction
on the power of the Authority is that it could not grant a permit for a route
not specified in the application.
7. In this case, what the Authority has done is to grant the permanent
stage carriage permits in regard to the routes for which the applications were
made, but with a modification, by curtailing the routes for which the permits
were applied, only up to Barasat. The Authority in effect therefore refused to
grant the permit for the last leg (Barasat to Kolkata) of the two routes
applied. Though the communications from the Authority to the respondent
did not contain the reason for curtailing the routes, it is stated that the
resolutions of Authority (which led to the issue of the impugned
communications) assigned the reason for curtailment. The reason was that in
view of the heavy traffic congestion and vehicular pollution in Kolkata,
there was restriction of entry of new passenger vehicles into Kolkata and,
therefore, the permits were granted only up to Barasat.
5
8. The Division Bench proceeded on the basis that when one of the
termini is altered by the Authority, then the permit is not granted in respect
of the route applied, and it would amount to granting a permit in respect of a
route not specified in the application. On a careful consideration, we are of
the view that the interpretation by the High Court is without basis. What is
prohibited by the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 72 is granting of a
permit in respect of any route or area not specified in the application. The
said proviso does not prohibit curtailment in regard to portion of the route
applied for, for any valid reason. In fact sub-section (1) specifically
authorizes the Authority to grant the stage carriage permit with such
modifications as it deems fit. Curtailment of a route would be a modification
as contemplated under sub-section (1). We may clarify this by an illustration
where the application is made for grant of a permit in regard to a route A to
D through points B and C. If the grant is made for the route A to C through
B, excluding the last portion C to D, it will be a modification which is
contemplated and provided for under sub-section (1) of Section 72 of the
Act. On the other hand, if the grant is made in regard to route E to F or in
regard to route A to E, the grant will be in regard to a route not specified in
the application and consequently the permit will be violative of the proviso
to sub-section (1) of Section 72 of the Act.
6
9. In this case, the route applied for was Dhulian Bazar to Kolkata, via
Raghunathganj and Barasat in one case and Raghunathganj to Kolkata via
Barasat in the other case. Permits were granted from Dhulian Bazar to
Barasat and Raghunathganj to Barasat, excluding the portion from Barasat to
Kolkata. Such curtailment was a modification which was permitted and
authorized by section 72(1) of the Act. The Division Bench of the High
Court was not therefore justified in holding that the grant of a permit for a
route with any curtailment would be a violation of Section 72(1) of the Act.
10. The next question is whether the Authority was justified in curtailing
the route and granting the permits only up to Barasat thereby deleting the
last leg of the route from Barasat to Kolkata. Though no reason was given in
the communications of the Authority about the grant of permits, the
resolutions of the Authority gave the reason that the curtailment was
necessitated due to the need to restrict entry of new passenger transport
vehicles into Kolkata on account of heavy traffic congestion and increasing
vehicular pollution.
11. The respondent contended that the said reason was not a valid reason,
as during the pendency of these matters, long after the curtailment of routes
7
in his case, several permanent stage carriage permits were granted on
various inter-regional routes, all up to Kolkata, without any curtailment.
12. The appellant-State responded by contending that in view of the
traffic congestion and automobile pollution in Kolkata reaching alarming
proportions, entry of vehicles in Kolkata was being restricted in a phased
manner as a matter of policy; that the State Government constituted a
technical committee on 2.1.2004 as per directions of the Division Bench of
the High Court dated 21.11.2003 in M/s. Sankar Automobiles v. State of
West Bengal – CA No. 568/2002/APOT No. 83 of 2002) to examine inter
alia the road space, availability of halting space, terminus and related
matters; that in accordance with the recommendation of a Technical
Committee, the State Government issued a notification dated 2.8.2004
(gazetted on 6.8.2004) directing the Authority and all Regional Transport
Authorities in the State as follows:
1) No new bus route be formulated and permits be issued which may
pass through the Central Business District viz. Esplanade and Band Stand in
Kolkata and Howrah station and approach areas of Howrah Bridge till
further orders;
8
2) No new permit for Stage Carriage shall be issued which may
originate/terminate in Esplanade and Band Stand in Kolkata and Howrah
Station;
3) No new bus route shall also be created/formulated in Kolkata and
Howrah without creating appropriate parking place having requisite
amenities for both the passengers as well as the transport workers.
The appellants submitted that the validity of the said notification was upheld
by the Division Bench of the High Court by order dated 27.9.2005 in FMA
No.604 of 2004 (Sujata Ganguly v. State of West Bengal). The State
Government admitted that it had granted some permits up to Kolkata during
the pendency of these matters, but that was in pursuance of specific
directions of the High Court in some writ petitions and before issue of the
notification dated 2.8.2004. The appellants have furnished the particulars of
the orders of the High Court which directed grant of permit up to Kolkata. It
was submitted that as the issue of notification (which was ultimately issued
on 2.8.2004) was under process, and as these matters were still pending, the
appellants complied with the orders of the High Court in those cases.
13. The respondent replied by contending that the prohibition under a
notification dated 2.8.2004 would not apply to him as his applications were
of the years 1997 and 1998 and the grant of permit for curtailed routes were
9
by orders passed in 2000 long prior to the said notification and therefore, the
said notification was not relevant.
14. The notification dated 2.8.2004 was pressed into service by the State
Government only to counter the argument that some permits for routes up to
Kolkata were granted during the pendency of these matters. The question for
decision in these appeals is whether the Authority had the power to grant
stage carriage permits with modification by curtailing a part of the routes
applied. We have already held that the Authority has the power to grant a
stage carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such
modifications as it deems fit. So long as the reason for the modification is
not found to be arbitrary or unreasonable, the question of interfering with the
order of the Authority does not arise. The grant of some permits to others for
routes touching Kolkata during the pendency of these matters, would not
affect the validity of the orders of the Authority, nor be a ground for
interfering with the orders of the Authority, as appellants have explained the
reason why in some cases, during the pendency of the matter it had to issue
permits.
15. In view of the subsequent events, the question of directing the
Authority to consider the applications of respondent afresh does not arise.
10
These appeals are allowed, the orders of the High Court are set aside, the
orders of the Authority are restored and the curtailment of routes is upheld.
……………………………J.
(R V Raveendran)
New Delhi; ...............................J.
July 5, 2010. (P Sathasivam)