Safikul Gazi v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

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 2 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. 3

#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 Bengal1 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 application for a permit shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles: Provided that if it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles in two or more regions lying within the same State, the application shall be made to the 1 2015(2) CHN (Cal) 185 4 Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the major portion of the proposed route or area lies, and in case the portion of the proposed route or area in each of the regions is approximately equal, to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to keep the vehicle or vehicles: Provided further that if it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles in two or more regions lying in different States, the application shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the applicant resides or has his principal place of business. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that in the case of any vehicle or vehicles proposed to be used in two or more regions lying in different States, the application under that sub-section shall be made to the State Transport Authority of the region in which the applicant resides or has his principal place of business.”

#10. A perusal of the aforesaid section would make it clear that in a case where the concerned route passes through several regions of the same State, the Regional Transport Authority having jurisdiction over the major portion of the route would be the authority who would consider and grant permit in respect of the said route.

#11. In the instant case the Route 274B i.e. Champadali Bus Stand to Dankuni Housing passes through three regions of the State i.e. North 24- Parganas, Hooghly and Howrah. It is evident that none of the three regions have taken the impugned decision (adopted the impugned resolution). The decision has, on the contrary, been taken by the State Transport Authority, which on the face of it, is wholly without jurisdiction.

#12. Furthermore, the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench, in the case of Sujata Ganguly (supra) that has been relied on by the writ petitioner 5 makes it clear that the State Transport Authority can exercise the power of Regional Transport Authority only within the scope and ambit of Section 68(3)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and that, in normal course or ordinarily the State Transport Authority cannot entertain any application for permit except in cases coming within Section 68(3)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

#13. When in fact, all the three regions through which the route passes i.e. North 24-Parganas, Hooghly and Howrah have their own Regional Transport Authorities, the contingency contemplated in Section 86(3)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cannot be said to have arisen in this case and, as such, the State Transport Authority was not within its jurisdiction to adopt the resolution dated January 25, 2025 in respect of the said Route 274B- Champadali Bus Stand to Dankuni Housing.

#14. Furthermore, the said resolution evidently has been adopted on January 25, 2025 while the application for permit has been made on February 20, 2025. No such decision could have been taken (or resolution could have been adopted) by the State Transport Authority for grant of permit, even if it had jurisdiction, without there being an application therefor. In such view of the matter also the decision taken/the resolution adopted on January 25, 2025 cannot hold good.

#15. The resolution adopted by the State Transport Authority, West Bengal is, therefore, found to be illegal and the same is set aside. 6

#16. WPA 14754 of 2025 is disposed of leaving the respondents free to take such decision as they deem fit and proper, strictly in accordance with law. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

#18. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible. S.R. (ARC) (Om Narayan Rai, J.)