(1). CASES were coming before the Court every now and then that the State transport Authority (STA) was refusing permit originating and terminating from the city of Kolkata and Howrah on the ground of pollution and congestion in the bus terminus and sometimes immediately thereafter such permits were being granted. In some cases the refusal was supported by an alleged policy decision of the Government which was also so disclosed in some cases by affidavit. Ultimately, it was found that no such policy decision was ever taken in the circumstances, this Court having faced difficult situation in deciding this question, where the State Government was taking different stands in different cases, directed the State Government to form a committee to submit a report on the two grounds on which permits were being refused, and on the basis of such report to take a policy decision as it might think fit and proper. 1. 1. Accordingly, a committee was appointed. The committee after going into the matters had submitted its report. Upon consideration of the said report the Government took a policy decision. This policy decision was notified by notification No. 3438-WT/bm-139/2004 dated 2nd August, 2004. This notification was published in the Official Gazette on 6 August, 2004. By reason of the said notification a policy decision was intimated to the public prohibiting issue of new permits in respect of Stage Carriages on the routes both notified and non-notified touching/originating/terminating at Kolkata and H0owrah CBD (Central business District) viz, Esplanade and Band Stand in Kolkata and Howrah station and approach areas of Howrah Bridge (Rabindra Setu). 1. 2. By reason of this notification various writ petitions were moved on the ground that some offer letters were issued before 6th August, 2004 but on account of the interim order granted in this appeal no permit was being granted and there are various other grounds on which various applications were being made. After impleading respective applicants as parties to the appeal various interim orders were being issued. 1. 3. Now the time has come to call it a day. Since, a policy decision has already been adopted and a notification under section 71 (3) (a) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 has since been issued in respect of the city of Kolkata and howrah respectively, the question has to be decided as to how the permits are to be granted. By reason of the said policy decision various operators are facing various difficulties. These are being highlighted before us. Each individual case requires individual attention in respect of the case pleaded. However the cases may be categorized in few groups having common points in between them. It is for the State Government to formulate a scheme for dealing with these various kinds of cases grouping them in different groups having common questions involved. Preliminary objection : Locus standi of the appellant:

(2). MR. Manick Das, learned Advocate for some of the applicants has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition and the appeal on the ground that the writ petitioners have no locus standi since they are not interested in the plying of the vehicle; they are only common people. According to him the writ petition can only be treated as Public Interest Litigation which this Court cannot entertain. It should have been moved before the appropriate bench dealing with Public Interest Litigation. 2. 1. We are unable to agree with the proposition advanced by Mr. Das for the simple reason that this Court had directed the State Government to form a policy in view of the fact that everyday inconsistent stands were being taken by the State for which this Court was being called upon to decide the issues on divergent stands and which really perplexed the Court as to how to deal with this question and the Court was being flooded with cases unnecessarily.-The courts valuable time was being encroached upon by reason of a sit