Back
1997 Supreme(Cal) 434
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Samaresh Banerjea, J.
Sri Kalipada Pathak & Ors.
vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
C.O. No. 18163 (W) of 1996
Decided On : November 28, 1997
Kashi Kanta Maitra, Niamatulla, Saktipada Jana. Pantu Debraj, Amal Sen for the petitioners in C.O. 18163 (W) of 1996;
Moloy Kr. Basu, D.K. Samanta for the respondents in C.O. 18163 (W) of 1996;
N.I. Khan, Ms. H. Chowdhury for the R.T.A.
Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, does not permit a change of route in respect of a particular vehicle by allowing the withdrawal of the vehicle from the existing route and its operation in a new route, disregarding public interest.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - STAGE CARRIAGE PERMIT - CHANGE OF ROUTE - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 80(3): - Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which deals with the variation of permit conditions, does not permit a change of route in respect of a particular vehicle by allowing the withdrawal of the vehicle from the existing route and its operation in a new route, disregarding public interest. - The second proviso to Section 80(3) clearly states that the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed 24 kilometers, indicating that it does not allow for a new route with different termini and a variation exceeding 24 kilometers. - Section 72(2)(i) of the Act, which allows the specification of a route or routes for a stage carriage, does not support the argument that a stage carriage operator can switch routes at will, as the termini must remain the same and the distance covered by the variation cannot exceed 24 kilometers.
Fact of the Case:
Numerous writ petitions were filed challenging the actions of the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) in Calcutta, India, which allowed stage carriage operators to change the routes of their vehicles from existing ones to new ones on the ground that the existing routes were not economically viable. The petitioners, who were residents of the areas affected by the route changes and existing mini-bus operators in the existing routes, argued that such changes would cause inconvenience and hardship to the traveling public and hamper the interests of the existing operators. The respondent stage carriage operators, on the other hand, contended that they had the right to change routes under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and that the RTA had the authority to permit such changes.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court of Calcutta held that: - Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act does not permit a change of route in respect of a particular vehicle by allowing the withdrawal of the vehicle from the existing route and its operation in a new route, disregarding public interest. - The second proviso to Section 80(3) clearly states that the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed 24 kilometers, indicating that it does not allow for a new route with different termini and a variation exceeding 24 kilometers. - Section 72(2)(i) of the Act, which allows the specification of a route or routes for a stage carriage, does not support the argument that a stage carriage operator can switch routes at will, as the termini must remain the same and the distance covered by the variation cannot exceed 24 kilometers.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, permits a change of route in respect of a particular vehicle by allowing the withdrawal of the vehicle from the existing route and its operation in a new route, disregarding public interest? 2. Whether Section 72(2)(i) of the Act supports the argument that a stage carriage operator can switch routes at will?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, does not permit a change of route in respect of a particular vehicle by allowing the withdrawal of the vehicle from the existing route and its operation in a new route, disregarding public interest. - The second proviso to Section 80(3) clearly states that the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed 24 kilometers, indicating that it does not allow for a new route with different termini and a variation exceeding 24 kilometers. 2. Section 72(2)(i) of the Act, which allows the specification of a route or routes for a stage carriage, does not support the argument that a stage carriage operator can switch routes at will, as the termini must remain the same and the distance covered by the variation cannot exceed 24 kilometers.
Final Decision: The High Court of Calcutta set aside the orders of the RTA permitting the change of routes and directed the RTA to reconsider the applications of the stage carriage operators in accordance with the law and the principles laid down in the judgment.
Samaresh Banerjea, J.
Common questions of law and fact being involved in all the present writ petitions the same have been heard analogously.
2. In all the writ petitions the questions of law which have come up before this court for determination is whether under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage under a valid permit in one particular route can ask for change of the route in respect of the vehicle in question and is entitled to obtain the same on the ground that the existing route where the vehicle is already being plies is not economically viable and whether on such an application made by a stage carriage operator the Transport Authority can allow such prayer mechanically by cancelling its permit in the existing route to enable to him to withdraw the vehicle from the existing route to enable him to ply the same in a new route under a new permit without considering the hardship and difficulties to be faced by members of the travelling public in the existing route.
3. It may be noted that in all the writ petitions the writ petitioners applied for such change of route on the ground that the existing route is not economically viable.
4. In the case of Kalipada Pathak & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal being C.O. No. 18163 (W) of 1996 the writ petitioners no. 1 to 8 who are residing within the areas of Biren Roy Road East, Calcutta-41 and the petitioners no. 9 to 22 who are the existing mini bus operators in the route from Thakurpurkur to B.B.D. Bag have challenged the action of the Regional Transport Authority, Calcutta to accept the application of the respondent no. 5 Shri Sukumar Goswami, who is already operating a stage carriage under a permanent permit in the route Karunamoyee to Phool Bagan, for change of the same to the route Thakurpukur to B.B.D. Bag.
5. It is the contention of the petitioners that the commuters of areas of Biren Roy Road (East) have been suffering from acute transport problem day to day since long because there is no other buses or mini buses except the mini bus in the route in question which again according to the petitioners is not sufficient. It is the contention of the petitioners that a number of buses in the said route have already been withdrawn and withdrawal of the mini bus in question of the respondent no. 5 will create more inconvenience and hardship to the commuters of the Biren Roy Road (East) and the same will also hamper the interest of transport business carried on by the operators in the route Thakurpukur to B.B.D. Bag.
6. It is the further contention of the petitioners that although under section 80(3) of the M.V. Act an application to vary the condition of permit other than a temporary permit by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area by altering the route or routes or area covered by it shall be treated as an application for grant of a new permit, the same will not entitle an existing operator of a route to apply for change of route in respect of the same vehicle and the transport authority also cannot entertain and consider such an application, although such operator may apply for fresh permit for any other route in respect of another vehicle; but so long as a vehicle is covered by one permit on a particular route, application for permit in respect of the self-same vehicle cannot be made for a different route. It is the further contention of the writ petitioners that the Regional Transport Authority cannot also permit the respondent no. 5 to withdraw vehicle from the existing route and apply the same in different routes only in the interest of the operators in question in utter disregard of the inconvenience and hardship which will be caused to the travelling public of the existing route by withdrawal of the vehicle from the same route, particularly, when the transport authorities being a statutory body is required to act fairly, reasonably and in public interest and not against publi
