The court ruled that the State Transport Authority exceeded its jurisdiction in granting permits for a route passing through multiple regions, violating procedural requirements.

For the petitioner : Mr. N.I. Khan Mr. Amlan Kumar Mukherjee Mr. Dilip Kumar Mandal For the State Respondents : Mr. Pantu Deb Roy, AGP Mr. Pannalal Bandopadhyay Heard and Judgment on : 16-07-2025 Om Narayan Rai, J.:-

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the resolution taken by the State Transport Authority, West Bengal in its meeting held on January 25, 2025 thereby approving the applications for grant of permits in favour of several applicants pertaining to Route 274B-Champadali Bus Stand to Dankuni Housing.

2. It is submitted by Mr. Khan, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that the said resolution is absolutely without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the subject route traverses three different regions and that, being so in terms of Section 69 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 any decision as regards grant of permit ought to have been taken by such Regional Transport Authority under whose jurisdiction the major portion of the proposed route lies.

3. It is further submitted that in any case, a decision as regard grant of permit in respect of a route that passes through several regions could not have been taken by the State Transport Authority.

4. It is further pointed out that the resolution itself would reveal that the application for grant of permit was made on February 20, 2025 while the date of the resolution is January 25, 2025 and, therefore, the resolution predates the application. He relies on a judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sujata Ganguly & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. in (FMA 604 of 2004) to submit that the State Transport Authority could have exercised power for grant of permit only if there were routes common to two or more regions in order to sub-serve the necessity provided in clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 68 read with clause ‘c’ in accordance with Rule 86 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

5. Mr. Deb Roy, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the resolution adopted by the State Transport Authority in its meeting held on January 25, 2025 inasmuch as the petitioner was/is not the applicant. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot be said to be a “person aggrieved” and therefore, the instant writ petition cannot be maintained by him.

6. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material on record.

7. The petitioner has run a case in the writ petition that a substantial portion of the route in respect of whereof the impugned resolution has been adopted is common to the route whereon the petitioner plies his vehicle. He has alleged that he would be directly affected by the impugned resolution whereby permits have been illegally granted to several persons in respect of the said route (i.e. 27B- Champadali Bus Stand to Dankuni Housing).

8. The Hon’ble Full Bench has in the case of Prabhat Pan v. State of West Bengal , [2015(2) CHN (Cal) 185] settled the law that even if a litigant is a business rival he would be entitled to challenge a permit granted to another if he can demonstrate before the Court that such permit is patently illegal or has been granted absolutely arbitrarily or de horse the law. In such view of the matter the challenge thrown to the locus standi of the petitioner cannot be sustained.

9. The decision dated January 25, 2025 ex facie appears to be in the teeth of Section 69 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 . Section 69 of the said Act reads as follows: -

“69. General provision as to applications for permits. –

(1) Every