06.01.2026

S l. No. 31

g.b.

Court No.10

266313

W.P.A. 27130 of 2025

Subrata Kanrar

-Vs-

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee

Ms. Sretapa Sinha

Mr. Ankan Das

Ms. Shradhya Ghosh

Mr. Raunak Seal

…..For the Petitioner

Mr. Sankar Nath Mukherjee

Sk. Samim Akter

……For the Private Respondent No.8

Mr. Pantu Deb Roy, Ld. AGP Mr. Pannalal Bandopadhyay

….For the State

Affidavit of service filed in court today is

taken on record.

1. The petitioner in the instant case is a stage

carriage operator holding a valid permit for the route Amta to New Town challenging, inter alia, the illegal alteration of route no. KB-20 by the Regional Transport Authority, Kolkata by replacing the original terminus (Salap More by Dhulagori) in contravention to Sections 69 and 71 (3) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with corresponding Rule 103 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles

Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’ and the ‘said Rules’).

2. The petitioner in the instant case throws a challenge to the variation of the extended route made by the Regional Transport Authority, Kolkata.

3. It is submitted that as per the first proviso to Section 69 (1) of the said Act contemplates that the applications for permits shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the major portion of the proposed route or area lies.

4. In this context it is submitted by the petitioner that the major portion of the route lies within the jurisdiction of Regional Transport Authority, Howrah and not within Regional Transport Authority, Kolkata. The Regional Transport Authority, Kolkata has extended the route from Salap More to Dhulagori in excess of his jurisdiction.

5. Since route KB-20 is a notified route, such extension to a notified route can only be given effect to by way of a notification as per Section 71 (3)(a) of the said Act. Petitioner places reliance upon a judgement of Privy Council dated 16.06.36 Nazir Ahmed Vs.

King Emperor which is reproduced below:

“The rule which applies is a different and not less well recognised rule, namely, that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all.”

6. Learned counsel for the State respondents takes the preliminary point of the locus of the petitioner with regard to the filing of the instant writ petition after a lapse of 10 years from the date of issuance of the permit.

7. Section 71 (3)(a) is clearly applicable in case of those vehicles operating on city routes in terms of the population not less than 5 lakhs. But in the instant case the route falls outside the city route since the route alignment runs from Kolkata Station to Salap More which has been subsequently extended to Dhulagori.

8. Learned counsel for the private respondent takes the point of non-joinder of parties since the petitioner in the representation dated 12^th September, 2025 (being Annexure ‘P-3’ at page 29 of the writ petition) lodged complaints before the authority concerned regarding illegal and arbitrary variation of the route no. KB-20 in respect of various permit holders whereas the petitioner has only been made as a party to the proceeding without adding other permit holders to the array of the proceeding.

9. By dint of a notification of 2016 the area of the Regional Transport Authority, Kolkata has been extended upto Howrah Police Commissionerate. The Regional Transport Authority, Kolkata issued a permit on 10.01.2022 for a new route i.e. from Dhulagori to Kolkata Station which remained valid up to 29.04.2025 being annexure ‘P-2’

at page 28 of the writ petition.

10. Since the issue involved herein is highly contested, let both the private and State respondents file affidavit-in-opposition within a period of three weeks; reply, if any, thereto within a period of two weeks thereafter. Let this matter appear on 12^th February, 2026 under the heading “Hearing” fairly at the top.

( Smita Das De, J.)