Sanjib Banerjee, J.

There is a primary question and a supplemental issue that have been referred to this Full Bench:

“Whether, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India : AIR 1992 SC 443, a writ petition at the instance of existing operators providing stage carriage services on different routes, who seek to challenge grant of fresh permits in favour of new operators (either on the self-same routes on which they have been operating or touching a portion of the same) by the transport authorities ostensibly taking recourse to the bogey of liberalized policy relating to grant of permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not maintainable although such grant ex facie might appear to the Court to be grossly illegal, patently arbitrary and in colourable exercise of power, consequently offending the constitutional concept of equality?”

“Whether it would be permissible for the Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain applications by holders of stage or contract carriage permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 questioning action or inaction on the part of the transport authorities in dealing with the complaint or allegations in relation to acts of other operators in running their vehicles for carrying passengers, whether holding permits or not, which acts would constitute ex-facie violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or Rules made in that regard”.

The circumstances in which the reference has arisen have been succinctly captured in the orders of October 8, 2013 and November 11, 2014. Ideally, such orders ought to be reproduced, but for the sake of brevity the salient parts of the orders are paraphrased to bring out the essence thereof.

The principal question indicated above has been formulated in WP 3937(W) of 2013 in the order of October 8, 2013. Such principal question has been quoted in the second order of reference along with the supplemental question extracted above. The second order of reference has been passed in the other clutch of petitions. The case made out in the first of the petitions, which is covered by the order of reference of October 8, 2013, is that the petitioners are holders of stage carriage permits on different routes all terminating in Howrah. The petitioners complain of the respondent transport authorities having allowed vehicles to be operated in contravention of a notification of August 2, 2004 which was issued pursuant to the direction of a Division Bench of this court of November 21, 2003. The notification was published in the Official Gazette on August 6, 2004 and it stipulates that no new bus route through Esplanade or the Bandstand in Kolkata or the Howrah Station or the approach areas of the Howrah Bridge (Rabindra Setu) would be formulated or permits be issued; that no stage-carriage permits would be issued for any route originating or terminating at Esplanade or Bandstand in Kolkata and at Howrah Station; and, no new bus route shall be created in Kolkata and in Howrah without establishing appropriate parking places having requisite amenities for both the passengers and the transport workers.

The seven complaining petitioners in the first of the petitions have sought, inter alia, a mandamus for cancellation of the permits issued in violation of the notification published on August 6, 2004. One of the beneficiaries of the alleged illegal grant of permit was subsequently impleaded as the eighth respondent to the first of the petitions and such added respondent questioned the maintainability of the petition at the instance of the rival operators by referring to a Division Bench judgment of this Court apparently extending the dictum in Mithilesh Garg [(1992) 1 SCC 168] to any complaint made by an existing operator against a rival.

The first order of reference noticed the Division Bench judgment reported at (2008) 1 CHN 1096 (Sekhar Chatterjee v. Abdur Rahim Mondal) and similar v