SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Cal) 362

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
OM NARAYAN RAI, J.
Apu Sinha – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondent
WPA 14022 of 2025
Decided On : 08-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Barun Kumar Samanta, Adv.
For the Respondent: : Mr. Ansar Mondal, Ld. AGP Mr. Tanweek J. Mandal, Adv.

The Transport Authority can impose a deterrent penalty under Section 86(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act for repeated violations of permit conditions, and the absence of agreement on the penalty does not invalidate permit cancellation procedures.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 86(5) - The petitioner's permit was cancelled by the State Transport Authority for repeated violations of permit conditions. The petitioner argued that the penalty of Rs. 4,00,000 was exorbitant and that a lower amount should be accepted. The court emphasized that the State Transport Authority has discretion under Section 86(5) to impose a sum that is a deterrent for repeat offenders and found the proposed amount justified based on the petitioner's violations. (Paras 8, 12, 16)

(B) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - The court found no necessity for a fresh show-cause notice as the violations were established. If a party has violated the law and no other extenuating circumstances exist, strict compliance with natural justice is not mandated. (Paras 10, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner owned a bus and had received multiple fines for unauthorized halting and other violations of permit conditions. After failing to respond to a show-cause notice, his permit was suspended and eventually cancelled after subsequent violations. (Paras 2a-2i)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the penalty imposed by the State Transport Authority and clarified that the penalty amount does not infringe the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court found the proposed sum to be appropriate given the petitioner's history of violations. (Paras 6, 16)

Issues: The court addressed whether the penalty imposed was exorbitant and whether the Transport Authority was required to issue a new show-cause notice before permit cancellation. (Paras 3, 13)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that under Section 86(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Transport Authority has the discretion to impose a penalty that acts as a deterrent against violations, regardless of the amount being contested as excessive. (Paras 9, 16)

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background of the cancellation of transport permit (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding exorbitant fine imposition (Para 3 , 4)
3. state's argument on habitual violations (Para 5 , 6)
4. court's findings on permit violations and proposed fine (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
5. deterrent measures for repeated traffic violations (Para 11 , 12)
6. distinction of case law on repeated offences (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
7. conclusion on dismissal of writ petition (Para 16 , 17)

Judgment :

Om Narayan Rai, J.

1. This writ petition assails an order dated April 21, 2025 passed by the Board of the State Transport Authority, West Bengal.

2. The facts of the case as may be culled out from the material on record are as follows:-

a) The petitioner owns a bus. It was thus far being plied on the route Sonakania to Karunamoyee on the strength of an Inter-Regional State Carriage Permit issued in his favour.

b) On or about April 22, 2024, the petitioner’s vehicle was unauthorisedly halted by the petitioner’s own staff at CBT, Esplanade. Since the halt was in violation of the permit conditions, a fine of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the petitioner by a challan dated April 22, 2024.

c) Subsequently, a Memo bearing No. 443/STA/SC dated July 3, 2024 was issued by the Secretary, State Transport Authority, West Bengal whereby the petitioner was directed to show-cause as to why should the petitioner’s permit not be cancelled for violation of the permit conditions.

d) The petitioner failed to give any suitable reply to the said show- cause notice as the petitioner had allegedly not received the same within time. Consequently the Secretary, State Transport Authority, West Bengal issued an order dated August 6, 2024 whereby the petitioner’s permit was suspended for three months and the petitioner was directed to surrender the permit.

e) The petitioner represented against the said order dated August 06, 2024 by a letter dated September 02, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the said order of suspension but the State Transport Authority, West Bengal did not pay heed to the petitioner’s request. The petitioner, therefore, had to suffer the order of suspension of his permit for three months.

f) In the meantime, on August 12, 2024 the petitioner’s vehicle crossed Rabindra Setu, Howrah Bridge violating the permit conditions for the second time, wherefore another challan imposing fine of Rs. 10,000/- was issued against the petitioner.

g) Thereafter, the petitioner’s vehicle was found to have violated the permit conditions for a third time on September 09, 2024 and a further challan imposing another fine of Rs.10,000/- was issued against the petitioner.

h) Subsequently, the Secretary, State Transport Authority, West Bengal issued an order dated November 29, 2024 thereby cancelling the petitioner’s permit.

i) Upon receiving such order dated November 29, 2024 whereby the petitioner’s permit had been cancelled, the petitioner made a representation before the State Transport Authority, West Bengal on December 9, 2024 seeking withdrawal of the said order of cancellation of his permit. The said representation did not yield any positive result.

j) Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WPA No. 624 of 2025. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated March 18, 2025 thereby directing the respondent no. 2 in the writ petition to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to him. It was further directed that the said respondent would consider if the petitioner’s case could be “covered under the provision of Section 86(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act or not” and that if “upon consideration the said respondent came to an affirmative decision it would recall its order dated November 29, 2024 and pass necessary orders in terms of Section 86(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988”.

k) In terms of the said order, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of being heard by th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top