2025 Supreme(Pat) 1381
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
CWJC No. 22614 of 2018
(7.10.2025)
Amitabh ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sarvesh Kumar GP-24.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 2(40) – Modification of proposed time table for Inter-State Stage Carriage Permit granted by State Transport Authority – Modified time table issued by Secretary, S.T.A., is not sustainable in law, as it was issued contrary to terms of permit, relevant legal provisions, and despite the fact that competent authority had already renewed permit for a further period up to 29.08.2028 – Impugned annexure quashed and set aside – Writ petition allowed. (Paras 18, 19 and 20)
G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J.—The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following reliefs:—
“For quashing the modified time table issued by the Secretary, S.T.A, Bihar (Respondent no 3) to the petitioner for his Permanent Inter State Stage Carriage Permit no 24/2018 covered with Bus No BR-06PD-7387 and BR-06PD-7386, valid for the period 30.08.2018 to 29.08.2023 on the route Madhubani to Siliguri as contained in Annexure-4 to this writ petition, whereby the Learned Secretary (Respondent no 3) of its own without any order of the S.T.A, Bihar or any request made by the petitioner, modified the proposed time table after curtailing the arrival and departure timing of the notified bus stand lying between the route which has already been sanctioned and granted by the State Transport Authority, Bihar in favour of the petitioner in the meeting of S.T.A, Bihar dated 24.07.2018 proceeding of which has been signed on 25.07.2018, and be pleased to grant the proposed time table to the petitioner's permit.”
2. The petitioner challenges the modification of the proposed time table for the Inter-State Stage Carriage Permit granted by the State Transport Authority (S.T.A.), Bihar, for the route Madhubani to Siliguri.
3. The factual matrix, as stated by the petitioner, is as follows: pursuant to a Reciprocal Transport Agreement between the States of Bihar and West Bengal, published in the Bihar Gazette on 9.5.2016, ten vacancies were notified for Inter-State Stage Carriage Permits on the route from Madhubani to Siliguri. The petitioner submitted an application in the prescribed form with the requisite fees and a proposed time table. Objections were invited by publishing the proposed time table on the official website; further objections were received, the S.T.A. included the petitioner’s application in its agenda for the meeting held on 24.07.2018. The permit was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner at this meeting and the proceedings were signed on 25.07.2018. It is submitted that subsequently, the petitioner furnished all requisite vehicle and other documents for issuance of the permit. The Permanent Permit No. P.St.S 24/2018, along with the time table, was issued to the petitioner on 14.09.2018 (Annexure-4), and received by the petitioner on 21.09.2018.
4. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that upon receipt, the petitioner came to know that the S.T.A. had unilaterally modified the originally proposed time table by deleting the arrival and departure timings at several notified bus terminals along the route Darbhanga, Forbisganj and Purnia. It is further submitted that this deletion was contrary to Clause (xiii) of the Reciprocal Transport Agreement, which mandates that both reciprocating states i.e., State of Bihar and State of West Bengal shall allow stage carriages of the other state to pick up and set down passengers at their respective notified bus terminals.
5. The Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that Section 2(40) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, defines "stage carriage". Clause (XIII) of Reciprocal Transport Agreemnet contains that “Both the reciprocating State carriage of other State to pick up and set down the passengers from their respective notified but terminal. Furthermore, Section 2(38) of the Act defines "route" as a line of travel with specified highways and via points, which include notified bus terminals where stoppages can be scheduled. The unilateral deletion of halt timings by the S.T.A. without the petitioner’s consent and without any order authorizing such modification, is illegal and contrary to the Motor Vehicles Act and the Reciprocal Transport Agreement. The petitioner emphasizes that the revised time table envisages a continuous journey of approximately 8 hours without any halts, which is impracticable and contravenes Section 91 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Section 15 of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961. These provisions mandate rest intervals for drivers and wor