Calcutta High Court

The State Of West Bengal And Ors vs Arup Kumar Ghosh on 4 September, 2025

                   IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                            ORIGINAL SIDE

    Present:-
    The Hon'ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad
                   And
    The Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya



                               APOT 117 of 2025
                                     With
                                WPO 781/2024
                               IA NO: GA/1/2025

                    THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS
                                   -Vs-
                           ARUP KUMAR GHOSH

   For the Appellant       : Mr. Amal Kr. Sen, A.G.P.
                             Mr. S. Sumi.

   For the Respondent      : Mr. Sankar Nath Mukherjee, Adv.
                             Mr. Sk. Samim Akhter,
                             Ms. Manisha Paswan.

   Judgment on              : September 4, 2025.


    Madhuresh Prasad, J.:

1. The writ petition has been filed by the State assailing the order dated

20.08.2024 passed in WPO No. 781 of 2024.

2. The writ petitioner was holding a Stage Carriage Permit (hereinafter

referred to as permit) for Route Mansukha to Howrah via Kharar,

Ghatal, Mechogram, Kolaaghat, Uluberia. The said permit is bearing

NO. 192/10 issued by the State Transport Authority West Bengal

(hereinafter referred to as the STA in Short). He made a request on Calcutta High Court A.P.O.T. 117 of 2025 dt. 04.09.2025

10.10.2018 for curtailment of some distance between Mansukha and

Borda Chowkan. The respondents took no decision on such request

for curtailment of the route for a long time.

3. Under a communication dated 17.12.2022 bearing No. TPT-

2012(13)/9481/2022, the RTO and Assistant Director, STA, West

Bengal rejected the petitioner's request by assigning a reason that

curtailment of the rout will fail to serve the service of the common

people to and from Borda Chowkan to Mansukha to Howrah. The

same was put to challenge by the writ petitioner in an earlier writ

proceedings (WPA 7084 of 2023) and the same was disposed of on

4.09.2023 in the following terms:

" The writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent herein to revisit the issue and take a resolution in this regard in the board meeting upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law.

The entire exercise is expected to be completed within six weeks from the date of communication of this order.;

There shall be no order as to costs.

Since no affidavit has been invited, allegation contained in the writ petitions shall be deemed not to have been admitted."

4. Thereafter the issue was re-agitated by the petitioner along with copy

of the order passed in the writ proceedings. The same resulted in

issuance of a letter dated 08.12.2023, by Regional Transport Officer

No. 5 communicating decision of the STA Board in its resolution dated

09.10.2023. Relevant extract of the decision reads:

Calcutta High Court A.P.O.T. 117 of 2025 dt. 04.09.2025

"And whereas, in serial (i) in second proviso of sub-section (3) of Section 80 of MV Act, 1988 prescribed that the termini shall not be altered.

And whereas, in the said application of the permit holder is asking to change the termini.

Hence, after consideration, STA Board rejected the application for curtailment of the portion of Monsukha to Borda Chowkan in the route Howrah to Monsuka submitted by the permit holder Sri Arup Kumar Ghosh."

5. Decision of the Board was assailed by the writ petitioner in a writ

proceedings. WPA 1133 of 2024 filed by the petitioner was allowed.

The resolution of the STA Board dated 09.10.2023 was set aside and

the respondents were again directed to revisit the issue and conclude

the same by a reasoned decision within a stipulated time frame. WPA

1133 of 2024 was disposed of on 10.05.2024.

6. In compliance of the order passed in WPA 1133 of 2024 the Regional

Transport Authority Ghatal revisited the issue by a reasoned ordered

dated 14.06.2024. The authority decided not to allow the curtailment

of the route since such curtailment will not serve the convenience of

the public. The order dated 14.06.2024, is put to challenge in the

present writ proceedings, reads:

"Whereas, in accordance with sub-section (3) of section 80 of MV Act 1988, states that, "Any such variation or extension within such limits shall be made only after the transport authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended or any part thereof."

AND,

Whereas, A route inspection report vide docket number 586/STA/SC/ dated 29.09.2023, was dispatched to the A.R.T.O Ghatal office asking for opinion on whether or not the curtailment will benefit the general public's transportation to and fro Borda Chowkan and Monsukha.

Calcutta High Court A.P.O.T. 117 of 2025 dt. 04.09.2025

AND,

Whereas, the route inspection report dated 16.10.2023 vide memo no. 066/M.V.Section (Gtl) was submitted by the Ghatal ARTO, stating that it will fail to serve or provide any benefit to the movement of common people residing between Borda Chowkan and Monsukha.

AND,

Therefore, after considering all the aspects of the writ petition along with the report submitted by the A.R.T.O. Ghatal, and the submission of the Ld. Advocate of the petitioner, the STA board took a unanimous decision not to allow the said curtailment of the above-mentioned route, as it will not serve the convenience of the public."

7. By an order dated 20.08.2024 passed in WPO No. 781 of 2024 the

Hon'ble Single Judge Bench set aside decision of the authority dated

14.06.2024; and direction was issued upon the Secretary, STA to

consider the petitioner's prayer afresh in terms of the statutory

provision as well as the law settled in this regard. The order of the

Single Judge dated 28.08.2024, directed an opportunity of hearing to

be given to the petitioner and a reasoned order to be passed

thereupon. The order of the learned Single Judge is put to challenge

by way of the present intra-court appeal by the State authorities.

8. Learned Counsel for the State/appellants submits that the Hon'ble

Single Judge has remitted the matter back to the authority for

reconsideration, but after recording a conclusion that under the

proviso of Section 80 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter

referred as the "Act"), "curtailment" has not been made subject to any

condition or rider under the second proviso to Section 80(3) of the Act.

In view of such conclusion being recorded by the Hon'ble Single

Judge, the authority is hardly left with any discretion and the

Calcutta High Court A.P.O.T. 117 of 2025 dt. 04.09.2025

direction for passing reasoned order after giving opportunity of

hearing amounts to an empty formality.

9. It is also submitted that the findings recorded by the Hon'ble Single

Judge with regard to Second proviso of Section 80 (3) of the said Act,

is unsustainable in law. It is submitted that any decision with regard

to curtailment amounts to altering the route covered by the route

permit and amounts to variation of the route. Curtailment of route

has the effect of altering the termini. The same thus has to be treated

as application for grant of new permit. The fact that the expression

"curtailment" has not been mentioned in the second proviso cannot be

made the basis to conclude that curtailment is not subject to public

convenience contemplated under the Act. He has also placed reliance

on Section 72 (XXII) of the Act to buttress his submission. Relying

upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and

Another vs. Hansoli Devi and Ors. reported in (2002) 7 SCC 273,

he submits that while interpreting a provision in the statute it was not

open to the writ Court to adopt a hypothetical construction because

such construction in its view, is more consistent with the object and

policy of the Act. The learned State Counsel submits that the

underlying object of the statute in so far as the grant of Stage Carriage

Permit is concerned, is to serve the public convenience, maintain an

optimum level of road safety and frequency of vehicles plying on such

routes, so as to best serve the commuting public. While undertaking

such exercise for grant of variation, curtailment extension of route of

Calcutta High Court A.P.O.T. 117 of 2025 dt. 04.09.2025

Stage Carriage Permit all these issues have to be taken into

consideration.

10. The learned Counsel for the State has also placed reliance in

this regard a decision of the apex Court in Mithilesh Garg & Ors. V.

Union of (India & Ors. reported in (1992) 1 SCC 168. It is

submitted that as per said judgment the transport system in any

State is meant for benefit and convenience of the public. The STA has

the power under the said Act to consider an application by a reasoned

order considering all relevant factors. The apex Court in the said

judgment has held such consideration to be quasi-judicial in nature.

11. Therefore, the order of the Hon'ble Sigle Judge in so far as such

conclusions recorded therein, is, therefore, unsustainable and fit to be

set aside, so as to enable the appropriate authority to take a reasoned

decision, in accordance with law.

12. The learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand

submits that plain reading of the second proviso to Section 80(3) of

the said Act, leaves no room for doubt that there is an omission to

include the expression "curtailment" in this provision, therefore, an

application for curtailment cannot be subjected to any condition or

rider whatsoever. Commuter's convenience is relevant only in case of

an application for "variation" or "extension" of existing route. He has

also referred to the provisions contained in Section 72 (XXII) of the

said Act to emphasize his submission.

Calcutta High Court A.P.O.T. 117 of 2025 dt. 04.09.2025

13. The learned Advocate for the writ petitioner/ respondent has

placed reliance on judgement of the Division Bench of the Karnataka

High Court in the case of A. Diwakara Naik Vs. Karnataka State

Transport Authoritty and Ors. reported in ILR 2002 KAR 1357. He

has also relied upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s

Shiv Chand Amolak Chand Vs. The Regional Transport Authority

and Anr. reported in AIR 1984 SC 9.

14. We have considered the submissions of the rival parties.

15. The writ petitioner applied for a stage carriage permit for the

rout Mansukha to Howrah under the motor vehicles act 1988

(hereinafter referred to as the Act). Considering all relevant factors

including convenience of the public, the petitioner was allowed stage

carriage permit for the rout Mansukha to Howrah.

16. The petitioner thereafter sought curtailment of the route. He no

longer wanted to ply the stage carriage on the entire route for which

he had earlier taken a permit. Instead of plying the stage carriage from

Mansukha to Howrah, he wanted to shorten the route and ply the

stage carriage from Mansukha only up to Borda Chowkan. The

authorities have taken into consideration whether such curtailment

would serve public convenience and general requirement for public

transportation as contemplated under section 80 (3), of the Act. They

have relied upon inspection reports submitted by Assistant Regional

Transport Officer (ARTO), which found such curtailment not being

Calcutta High Court A.P.O.T. 117 of 2025 dt. 04.09.2025

beneficial for movement of common people residing between Borda

Chowkan to Mansukha. The petitioners' application has thus been

rejected by the state transport authority West Bengal, after giving an

opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner.

17. The learned Advocate for the appellant/state submitted that the

conclusion of the Hon'ble single judge is unsustainable. Under section

80(3) of the Act, public convenience cannot be ignored while

considering an application for altering/curtailing/varying a route

alignment, which initially was granted upon due consideration of

public interests to provide safe, convenient and speedy transportation

to the common man.

18. In order to appreciate the rival submissions we have to take into

consideration the scope and object of section 80 (3) of the Act which

reads:

" 80. Procedure in applying for and granting permits.--

...

(3) An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by altering the route or routes or area covered by it, or in the case of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum or by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes or the area specified in the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit:

Provided that it shall not be necessary so to treat an application made by the holder of stage carriage permit who provides the only service on any route to increase the frequency of the service so provided without any increase in the number of vehicles:

Provided further that,--

Calcutta High Court A.P.O.T. 117 of 2025 dt. 04.09.2025

(i) in the case of variation, the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed twenty-four kilometres;

(ii) in the case of extension, the distance covered by extension shall not exceed twenty-four kilometres from the termini,

and any such variation or extension within such limits shall be made only after the transport authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended or any part thereof. "

19. A plain reading of Section 80(3) reveals that an application to

vary the conditions of any permit other than a temporary permit shall

be treated as an application for grant of a new permit. The application

to vary referred to in Section 80(3), includes application for new route

or routes or area; or by altering the route, routes or area covered by

the original stage carriage permit. An application for increasing the

number of trips above the number specified in the original stage

carriage and an application for variation extension or curtailment of

the rout/routes or the areas specified in the permit, are all to be

treated as an application for grant of a new permit.

20. The first proviso governs only an application for increase in

frequency of the service provided on a route, without increasing the

number of vehicles, when such an application is made by a stage

carriage permit holder who provides the only service on any route. The

petitioner did not make an application for increasing frequency of

service being provided by him. Therefore, the petitioner's application

cannot be considered under the first proviso to Section 80(3) of the

Act.

Calcutta High Court A.P.O.T. 117 of 2025 dt. 04.09.2025

21. Insofar as the second proviso, on which reliance is placed by the

learned Advocate representing the respondents we find that Clause (i)

of the second proviso deals with the issue of variation in the termini

and Clause (ii) deals with extension of the distance covered. The

second proviso clearly states that any variation or extension is to be

made only after the transport authority is satisfied that the same will

serve the convenience of the public and also that it is not expedient to

grant a separate permit for the original route, so varied or extended.

22. From plain reading of Section 80(3) and the two provisos thereto

we find that the intention of the Act is clear that convenience of the

public is a paramount consideration. The same is required to be

observed in case of variation of the existing conditions of the permit,

or variation in the route or area of operation of the permit. The Act

also contemplates keeping the termini of the route undisturbed unless

of course it is in accord with the second proviso to Section 80(3).

Therefore, an application for curtailment of an existing route which

undoubtedly has the effect of varying the original route and altering

the termini cannot be considered without taking into consideration

the convenience of the public.

23. Insofar as decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of

A. Diwakara Naik (supra), relied upon by the writ petitioner

respondent, we find that insofar as the application for curtailment was

concerned the Division Bench has observed:

Calcutta High Court A.P.O.T. 117 of 2025 dt. 04.09.2025

"22. It is therefore clear that before granting any extension, variation or curtailment of the route, the Transport Authority should examine the matter and record a finding that (a) the variation or extension of the route sought does not exceed 24 kms with reference to the original route; (b) such variation/extension will serve the convenience of public;

and (c) it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended or any part thereof. If any of the three conditions is not satisfied, the request for variation of the conditions will have to be rejected. Further, if the resolution/order of the Transport Authority does not expressly or impliedly indicate the application of mind and decision on these three aspects, the resolution/order of the Transport Authority will not be in accordance with Section 80(3) and thus, will be open to challenge. We therefore agree with the learned Single Judge that recording of findings on these three aspects by the Transport Authority is necessary, to confer validity on the order granting variation of the conditions of the permit."

24. In the case of M/s Shiv Chand Amolak Chand (supra), also

relied upon by the writ petitioner, the Apex Court has rendered the

judgement considering the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles

Act 1939. On the other hand, we are concerned with Section 80 (3) of

the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. An application for extension of the route

under an existing permit made by the appellant therein was rejected

as it was not in compliance with Section 47 (3) of the 1939 Act. The

Apex Court was thus considering submission advanced on behalf of

the appellant that Section 47 (3) of the 1939 Act ("Old Act" for short)

was not applicable when an applicant is not seeking grant of a new

permit under section 48, but merely an extension of the route under

an existing permit, under Section 57 (8) of the Act.

25. Section 47(3) and Section 57 (8) of the 1939 Act reads:

""47. Procedure of Regional transport Authority in considering application for stage carriage permit.-

...

Calcutta High Court A.P.O.T. 117 of 2025 dt. 04.09.2025

(3) A Regional Transport Authority may, having regard to the matters mentioned in sub-section (1), limit the number of stage carriages generally or of any specified type for which stage carriage permits may be granted in the region or in any specified area or on any specified route within the region."

57. Procedure in applying for and granting permits.-

...

(8) An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or, in the case of a stage carriage permit, by increasing the '[number of trips above the specified maximum or by altering the route covered by it] or in the case of a con- tract carriage permit or a public carrier's permit, by increasing the number of vehicles covered by the permit, shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit:

Provided that it shall not be necessary so to treat an application made by the holder of a stage carriage permit who provides the only service, on any route or in any area to increase the frequency of the service so provided without any increase in the number of vehicles."

26. Sub-Section 1 of Section 47 of the Old Act contained procedure

to be followed by the Regional Transport Authority in considering an

application for a stage carriage permit. Under this provision the

authority was obliged to consider various factors including public

interest, convenience and advantages including the saving of time

likely to be affected thereby, the adequacy of other transport services

operating or likely to operate in the near future, by any means. Other

factors such as likely benefit to any particular locality or localities,

other transport services being operated by the applicant or applied for

by the applicant was also to be considered. The provision also

required the authority to consider the condition of roads included in

the proposed route or area. The authority was also required to

consider the representations made by existing permit holders, and

existing passenger transport facility by any means near or along the

Calcutta High Court A.P.O.T. 117 of 2025 dt. 04.09.2025

proposed route, or area. The section also contemplated giving

preference to applications made by registered co-operative societies

and by a person holding a valid license for driving transport vehicles.

27. Considering the provisions contained in Section 47 (3) of the Old

Act, extracted above, the Apex Court held that:

"7. ... An application to vary the conditions of a permit as set out is undoubtedly to be treated as an application for grant of a new permit, but that is only for the purpose of applying the procedure set out in sub-sections (3) to (7) of that section. It is not an application for a new permit and if it is granted, the permit for the extended route does not become a new permit in the hands of the applicant. It is the same permit which now, after the granting of the application, covers the extended route. It may be possible to say that where a totally new route is sought to be included by an application to vary the conditions of a permit or the alteration of the route sought by such an application is of such a drastic character that it becomes substantially a new route, the application, though in form an application to vary the conditions of the permit, would in effect and substance, be an application for grant of a new permit and in such a case, a view may conceivably be taken with some degree of plausibility that the number of stage carriages for which permits may be granted on such new route should first be determined under Section 47 sub-section (3) before the application to vary the conditions of the permit can be entertained. An applicant for a permit on a route which is not merely technically, but in truth and reality a different route, distinct from the original route, may not be permitted to defeat the provision enacted in Section 47 sub-section (3) by labelling his application as one for varying the conditions of the permit and in such a case, the procedure set out in Section 47 sub- section (3) may have to be complied with before the Regional Transport Authority can consider and grant the application. But where an application merely seeks a short extension of the route specified in the permit as in the present case, it would not be appropriate to say that it is an application for grant of a new permit, though technically the extended route may not be regarded as the same as the original route and where such is the case, it would not be necessary to comply with the procedure set out in sub-section (3) of Section 47."

28. The facts and circumstances in the present case are completely

different than the issue decided by the Apex Court in the case of M/s

Shiv Chand Amolak Chand (supra). The question whether there is a

requirement to examine number of Stage Carriages existing on the

Calcutta High Court A.P.O.T. 117 of 2025 dt. 04.09.2025

route. As per Section 47(3) of the Old Act, before an application for

varying the conditions of permit can be entertained does not arise in

the present case. The issue herein is whether the requested variation

being a curtailment of the existing route can be granted without

having regard to convenience of the public. A plain reading of the

provision [Section 80(3)] of the Act leaves no room for doubt that

convenience of the public is required to be seen, apart from the other

parameters specified in the section. The judgment in the case of M/s

Shiv Chand Amolak Chand (supra) in our opinion is not applicable

to the facts and circumstances of the present case and does not help

the case of the writ petitioner.

29. We further proceeded to consider decision of the Apex Court in

the case of Mithilesh Garg and Others vs. Union of India and

Others reported in (1992) 1 SCC 168. This judgment was rendered

after enactment of the 1988 Act, provisions of which arise for

consideration in the present proceeding. As regards Section 47(3) of

the Old Act which fell for consideration before the Apex Court in the

case of M/s Shiv Chand Amolak Chand (supra), we consider it

fruitful to quote paragraph 5 of the judgment in the case of Mithilesh

Garg (supra) which reads:

"5. The Parliament in its wisdom has completely effaced the above features. The scheme envisaged under Sections 47 and 57 of the old Act has been completely done away with by the Act. The right of existing operators to file objections and the provision to impose limit on the number of permits have been taken away. There is no similar provision to that of Section 47 and Section 57 under the Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act shows that the purpose of bringing in the Act was to liberalise the grant of permits. Section 71(1)

Calcutta High Court A.P.O.T. 117 of 2025 dt. 04.09.2025

of the Act provides that while considering an application for a stage carriage permit the Regional Transport Authority shall have regard to the objects of the Act. Section 80(2), which is the harbinger of liberalisation, provides that a Regional Transport Authority shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under the Act. There is no provision under the Act like that of Section 47(3) of the old Act and as such no limit for the grant of permits can be fixed under the Act. There is, however, a provision under Section 71(3)(a) of the Act under which a limit can be fixed for the grant of permits in respect of the routes which are within a town having population of more than five lakhs."

30. It is also beneficial to consider what has been stated by the

Apex Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg (supra) in paragraph 6,

relevant extract of which reads:

"6. ...In any case the transport system in a State is meant for the benefit and convenience of the public. The policy to grant permits liberally under the Act is directed towards the said goal. The petitioners who are already in the business want to keep the fresh entrants out of it and as such eliminate the healthy competition which is necessary to bring efficiency in the trade. This Court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar [(1976) 1 SCC 671 : (1976) 3 SCR 58 : AIR 1976 SC 578] posed the following questions for its determination: (SCC p. 674, para 1)..."

31. Such observations have been made by the Apex Court

emphasizing the convenience of the public. We, therefore, are of the

considered opinion that the underlying consideration under the Act as

apparent from the plain reading of Section 80(3) is to give primacy to

the convenience of the public. The observations of the Hon'ble Single

Judge that under the second proviso of Section 80(3) of the Act, "In

that perspective, when the "second proviso" of S. 80 (3) of the Act of

1988, is considered, it can be noticed that "curtailment" of a permitted

route alignment has not been made subject to any condition or rider.", is

not sustainable. We, therefore, set aside this observation of the

Hon'ble Single Judge. We also extend the time limit for passing a

Calcutta High Court A.P.O.T. 117 of 2025 dt. 04.09.2025