The State Transport Authority has the jurisdiction to issue permits for routes common to two or more regions within the State under Section 68(3)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and an existing permit holder cannot challenge the grant of such permits on the ground of illegality.

S. S. NIJJAR, C. J. :- This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 24-12-2003 in Writ Petition No. 18082(W) of 2003. The appellant is holder of a permanent stage carriage permit on the route Sonachandi Tea Estate of Siliguri-via-Kharibari, which was valid till 11th March, 2007. Respondent No. 2, State Transport Authority, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as STA) had issued numerous permits covering two regions i.e. Jalpaiguri and Darjeeling. The petitioner challenged the issuance of such permits on the ground that the STA had no jurisdiction to issue such stage carriage permits on the routes (local services) covering the regions of Jalpaiguri and Darjeeling. The action of the State Transport Authority was stated to be in contravention to various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Particular reference was made to Section 68(3)(b) and Section 69 of the Act. The petitioner objected to grant of such permits by making a representation on 1-11-2003. Since the objection raised by the petitioner had not been decided by State Transport Authority, the present writ petition was filed seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State Transport Authority to consider and dispose of the objections. After hearing the counsel for the parties the learned single Judge held that no legally enforceable right of the petitioner has been infringed. The learned single Judge also held that existing permit holder cannot dispute an illegal grant of permit to another. The only ground on which the grant of such permit could be challenged is that the permit has been granted without authority of law i.e. the permit granted by an authority having no jurisdiction. Hence, the present appeal by the petitioner/appellant.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned single Judge has wrongly held that the writ petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the grant of permit by the State Transport Authority. He further argued that the learned single Judge failed to appreciate the real impact and spirit of the judgment delivered by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 15432(W) of 2001 (delivered by Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. on 8-4-2002). The permit has been issued by State Transport Authority without having any jurisdiction to do so under Section 68(3)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The permit having been issued by an authority without jurisdiction could be challenged by the petitioner/appellant even though he was an existing permit holder. The words "if it thinks fit" have been interpreted by a judgment of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in the case of Dayalal N. Joshi v. State Transport Authority, Orissa, Cuttack, reported in AIR 1973 Orissa 39. Considering the provisions of Section 44(3) of the old Motor Vehicles Act, which pari materia in Section 68(3) of the present Act, it was held that unless material is placed before the Court to show that State Transport Authority decided to assume the jurisdiction over the route in question, such exercise should be deemed to be illegal exercise of jurisdiction. In the present case there was no request from the two Regional Transport Authorities functioning in the two districts of Siliguri and Darjeeling requesting the State Transport Authority to exercise jurisdiction on the route covering two districts. There was also no dispute between the two Regional Transport Authorities. Therefore, the State Transport Authority could not have assumed jurisdiction. The learned single Judge has, therefore, wrongly come to the conclusion that the State Transport Authority had the jurisdiction to issue permit covering two or more regions lying within the State. Apart from the aforesaid two judgments the learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanchan v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, reported in 2006 (2) CLJ 153 : (AIR 2006 SC 3444).

3. We have considered the