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

J U D G M E N T

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).  

1

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.   

2

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.”

3

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.   

4

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.

5

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  

6

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;

7

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  

8

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.  

9

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)           

10