STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.versusS.K. NURUL AMIN

                        [2010] 7 S.C.R. 496


A             STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
                                  v.
                          S.K. NURUL AMIN
                  (Civil Appeal No. 1961 of 2006)

                           JULY 05, 2010
B
        [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 72(1) - Interpretation of -
  Grant of stage carriage permit - Power of State Transport
C Authority to grant stage carriage permits with modification by
  curtailing a part of the routes applied for - Held: The State
  Transport Authority is not bound to grant a stage carriage
  permit as sought - It can refuse to grant such permit or grant
  permit"with such modifications as deemed fit by it -
o Curtailment of a route would be a modification as
  contemplated under s. 72(1) - State Transport Authority is not
  prohibited from curtailment in regard to portion of the route
  applied for, for any valid reason - So long as the reason for
  the modification is not found to be arbitrary or unreasonable,
E the order of the Authority cannot be interfered with - The only
  restriction on the power of the Authority is that it cannot grant
  a permit for a route not specified in the application.

       Respondent made two applications to the State
  Transport Authority, West Bengal for grant of permanent
F stage carriage permit. The first application was for a
  permit for the route Dhulian Bazar to Kolkata (via
  Raghunathganj and Barasat) and the second application
  was for a permit .for the route Raghunathganj to Kolkata
  (via Barasat).
G
       The State Transport Authority, West Bengal offered
  permits for the routes Dhulian Bazar to Barasat and
  Raghunathganj to Barasat respectively, by curtailing/


H                                496
   ·STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. v. S.K. .            497
                NURULAMIN
excluding the last portion of the two applied routes from     A
Barasat to Kolkata (26 kms.).

     By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that
when permits were sought for the routes - Dhulian Bazar
 to Kolkata and Raghunathganj to Kolkata, the State           B
 Transport Authority could not have offered permits by
 curtailing the routes, thereby changing one of the termini
 from Kolkata to Barasat, and that the orders of the State
 Transport Authority violated Section 72(1) of the Motor
.vehicles Act, 1988.
                                                              c
    In appeal to this Court, the question which arose for
consideration was whether the State Transport Authority
had the power to grant stage carriage permits with
modification by curtailing a part of the routes applied and
hence, in the instant case, the Authority was justified in    D
curtailing the route and granting the permits only up to
Barasat thereby deleting the last leg of the route from
Barasat to· Kolkata.

    Allowing the appeals, the Court
                                                              E
      HELD:1. Section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
deals with grant of stage carriage permits. A careful
reading of sub-section (1) of section 72 of the Act makes
it clear that the State Transport Authority, West Bengal is
not bound to grant a stage carriage permit as sought. The     F
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    G
not grant a permit for a route not specified in the
application. [Paras 5,6] [501-E-H; 502-A-B]

    2. In this case, what the Authority has done is to
grant the permanent stage carriage permits in regard to       H
    498    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 7 S.C.R


A· 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.
B 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
c 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. [Para 7] (502-
  C-E]
D        3. The High Court 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. The interpretation by the
E 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,
F· 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) of Section 72. [Para 8) [502-E-H;
G 503-A-B]
      4. 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
H Barasat and Raghunathganj to Barasat, excluding the
     STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. v. S.K.               499
                 NURULAMIN
portion from Barasat to Kolkata. Such curtailment was a         A
modification which was permitted and authorized by
section 72(1) of the Act. 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. [Para 9] [503-C-D]                                  B
     5. As regards the question as to 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        C
 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. [Para 10]       D
 [503-E-F]
       6. 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     E
  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           F
  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. [Para 14]
  (505-0-F]
                                                                G
      7.The orders of the High Court are set aside, the
 orders of the Authority are restored and the curtailment
 of the routes is upheld. [Para 15] [505-C-H]
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
 1961 of 2006.                                                  H
    500      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 7 S.C R.


A       From the Judgment & Order dated 27.4.2001 of the High
    Court at Calcutta in M.A.T. No. 1100 of 2001.

                                 WITH

    C.A. No. 1962 of 2006.
B
         Altaf Ahmad, Tara Chandra Sharma, Neelam Sharma for
    the Appellants.

          Bijan Kumar Ghosh, Satish Vig (NP) for the Respondent.
c         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. 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
D 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. The respondent made two applications to the State
E 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
F 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,
G 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.).

H         3. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed two writ
 STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. v. S.K. NURUL 501
          AMIN [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
 petitions which were disposed of by a learned Single Judge             A
 by orders dated 5.3.200.1 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              B
 orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent.

       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                  C
  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        D
  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.
                                                                        E
     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
                                                                        F
      provisions of section 72, a Regional Transport Authority
      may, o·n an applic~tion made to it.under section 70, grant
      a stage car~iage permit iri accordance with the application
     .or with such modifications es it deems fit or refuse to grant
      such a permit;
                                                                        G
      Provided that no such permit shall be granted in respect
      of any route or area not specified in the application."

       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     H
    502      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2010] 7 S.C.R.


A 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
B 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
C 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
D 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.
E
         8. The Division Bench proceeded on the basis that when
    one of the termini is altered by the Authority, then the permit is
    not g·ranted in respect of the route applied, and it would amount
    to granting a permit in respect of a ro.ute not specified in the
F 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 ~ection 72 is
    grantrrig of a permit .in respect of any route or area not specified
    in the-application. The said pravis.o does .not prohibit curtailment
G 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 st9ge carriage permit with such modifications as it
    deems fit. Ourtailment of a route would be a modificatior;i as
    c:ontemplated under sub-section (1). We may clarify this by an
  ·illustration Where the application is_ made for grant of a permit
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. v. S.K. NURUL 503
         AMIN [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
in regard to a route A to D through pqints B and C. If the grant      A
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 regardio a route      B,
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. ·                     .

     9. In this case, the route applied for was Dhulian Bazar to
Kolkata, via Raghunathganj and Barasat in one case and C
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 authori~ed by section 72(1) of the Act. The D
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 E
in curtai.ling 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 F
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,          G
long after the curtailment of ro.utes in his case, several
permanent stage carriage permits were granted on various
inter-regional routes, all up to Kolkata, withou.t any curtailment.
         12. The appellant-State responded by conten.ding that in     H
    504      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010) 7 S.C.R.


A view of the traffic congestion and automobile pollution ip
  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
B of the High Court dated 21.11.2003 in Mis. 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
C 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.
D         Esplanade and Band Stand in Kolkata and Howrah station
          and approach areas of Howrah Bridge till further orders;

          (2) No new permit for Stage Carriage shall be issued
          which may originate/terminate in Esplanade and Band
          Stand in Kolkata and Howrah Station;
E
          (3) No new bus route shall also be c~ated/formulated iri
          Kolkata and Howrah without creating appropriate parking
          place having requisite amenities for both the passengers
          as well as the transport workers.
F
          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
G         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
H
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. v. S.K. NURUL 505
         AMIN [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
     grant of permit up to Kolkata. It was submitted that as the     A
     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.
                                                                  B
     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 by orders ·
passed in 2000 long prior to the said notification and therefore, C
the sai~ 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          D
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       E
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    F
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              G
respondent afresh does not arise. 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.
B.. B.B.                                       Appeals allowed.      H