2010 Supreme(SC) 507

2010 (5) Supreme 148
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R V Raveendran and P Sathasivam, JJ.
State of West Bengal & Ors. — Appellants
versus
S. K. Nurul Amin — Respondent
Civil Appeal No.1961 of 2006
with
Civil Appeal No.1962 of 2006
Decided on : 5-7-2010

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- Sub-section (1) of section 72-Interpretation of- A careful reading of sub-section (1) of section 72 shows that Authority is not bound to grant a stage carriage permit as sought- The Authority can either grant stage carriage permit in accordance with application or refuse to grant such stage carriage permit or grant stage carriage permit with such modifications as it deemed fit- The only restriction on the power of Authority is that it can not grant a permit for a route not specified in the application- The question for decision in instant appeals was whether Authority had power to grant stage carriage permits with modification by curtailing a part of the routes applied- Since Authority has the power to grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with application or with such modifications as it deems fit-Hence held that so long as the reason for the modification is not found to be arbitrary or unreasonable, question of interfering with order of the Authority did 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 orders of Authority, as appellants had explained reason why in some cases, during the pendency of the matter it had to issue permits- In view of the subsequent events, question of directing Authority to consider the applications of respondent afresh not arose-Impugned orders of High Court set aside- Impugned orders of Authority restored and curtailment of routes upheld-Appeals allowed. (Paras 6 to 9, 14, 15)

       Facts of the Case :

       Issue in consideration in present appeals was regarding interpretation of sub-section (1) of section 72 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Respondent made two applications to the State Transport Authority, West Bengal (‘Authority’ for short) for grant of permanent stage carriage permit, the first for a permit for the route Dhulian Bazar to Kolkata (via Raghunathganj and Barasat), and the second for a permit for the route Raghunathganj to Kolkata (via Barasat). Authority, 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.). Feeling aggrieved, respondent filed two writ petitions which were disposed of by a learned Single Judge .

       2.The orders of the learned Single Judge were challenged by respondent by filing intra-court appeals before a Division Bench. Division Bench held that when permits were sought for the routes - Dhulian Bazar to Kolkata and Raghunathganj to Kolkata, 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.

       Findings of the Court :

       Instantly what the Authority had done was 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 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. Division Bench proceeded on the basis that when one of 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, held that interpretation by the High Court was without basis. What was prohibited by the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 72 was granting of a permit in respect of any route or area not specified in the application. The said proviso did not prohibit curtailment in regard to portion of the route applied for, for any valid reason. In fact sub-section (1) specifically authorized 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). Since Authority had the power to grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with application or with such modifications as it deems fit. Hence held that so long as the reason for the modification is not found to be arbitrary or unreasonable, question of interfering with order of the Authority did not arise.

       Result : Appeals allowed.