Judgment : With the prior approval of the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, the Regional Transport Authority, Nadia, granted a temporary Stage Carriage Permit in favour of the petitioner against his vehicle No. WGE 1459 in respect of the route Krishnagar to Farakka via Raghunathgunj, Berhampore (Murshidabad), N. H. 34 (Express Service) for the period from May 1, 1992 to August 27, 1992. A time table duly approved by the R. T. A. Nadia was also given to the petitioner along with the permit and the petitioner had been plying his vehicle according to such permit and time table (Annexures 'A' & 'B'). As it was reported to the R. T. A. Nadia that some transport operators and/or their agents were creating obstruction to the plying of the vehicle by the petitioner on the portion of the route falling within Murshidabad, the R. T. A. Nadia by a letter dated June 17, 1992 requested the R. T. A. Murshidabad to take appropriate steps so that the petitioner could ply his vehicle on the route smoothly. On June 25, 1992 the Motor Vehicles Inspectors of Murshidabad being the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 seized the vehicle and other papers of the petitioner at Berhampore on the allegation that the petitioner was plying his vehicle in violation of the condition of the permit. The petitioner contends that the allegations made for seizure of the vehicle and other papers were not correct and that he was plying the vehicle according to the permit and time table granted. The petitioner accordingly prayed for a direction upon the respondents to release the vehicle and other papers seized and also to allow him to ply the vehicle on the route in question in accordance with the time table already granted by the R.T.A. Nadia. 2. Pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court on July 10, 1992 the vehicle of the petitioner was released. It is, however, submitted by Mr. Maitra that other papers including the Blue Book have not yet been released by the authority concerned. 3. 2. Pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court on July 10, 1992 the vehicle of the petitioner was released. It is, however, submitted by Mr. Maitra that other papers including the Blue Book have not yet been released by the authority concerned. 3. In an affidavit-in-opposition, the R. T. A. Murshidabad contended that it did not approve the time table issued by the R.T.A. Nadia and that it prepared a fresh time table for the plying of the vehicle of the petitioner, since the time table as given to the petitioner by the R.T.A. Nadia was causing loss to the other transport operators, operating within the region of Murshidabad, The vehicle of the petitioner was seized since the petitioner violated the terms of the permit in that the petitioner did not stop his vehicle at Berhampore Bus Depot and that the petitioner was plying his vehicle on the basis of a time table which was not approved by the R.T.A. Murshidabad. 4. I have heard the submission, made by the learned Advocates for the parties. It is an admitted position that with the prior approval of the S.T.A. West Bef1gal, the RTA Nadia granted the temporary permit in favour of the petitioner, It is also clear from Annexure 'B' that a time table duly approved by the RTA Nadia was given to the petitioner to ply his vehicle according to such time table. In other words, the permit and the time table read together cannot leave any doubt that the petitioner was authorised by the appropriate authority viz, the RTA Nadia which granted the permit to ply the vehicle according to the time table issued by it. On a reading of Rules 118 and 119 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1980 it is clear that a time table may be changed from time to time if necessity for such change arises, If, therefore, the RTA Murshidabad considered that it was necessary to change the time table having regard to the time tables of other transport operators of Murshidabad region, it was his duty to take up the matter with the RTA Nadia and to get the time table of the petitioner changed after giving the petitioner and other interested parties an opportunity of hearing. Without first revising the time table already granted it was most inappropriate all that part of the RTA Murshidabad to direct that the vehicle of the petitioner should be seized for alleged violation of the terms of the permit and the time table, which were issued by the appropriate authority. The question whether any approval of the RTA Murshidabad to the time table was required or not was to be considered by the RT A concerned issuing the permit. It is to be noted that in the time table there is nothing to show that the Bus of the petitioner was required to stop at Berhampur Bus Depot. Obviously a permit granted for plying of the vehicle from Krishnanagar to Farakka has to pass through Berhampur, but that does not mean that the Bus has to stop at Berhampur Bus Depot unless it is specified in the permit or the time table. Be it mentioned that a Xerox copy of the driving licence has been produced before me to show that the driver of rile vehicle has a valid driving licence. 5. For the foregoing reasons it appears to me that the seizure of the vehicle and other papers by the respondents was not justified and accordingly the order seizing the vehicle and the other papers has to be quashed and is hereby quashed. 6. In the result, the writ application succeeds. The respondents are directed to return all the seized papers including the Blue Book to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be entitled to ply the vehicle according to the time table already issued by the R. T. A. Nadia unless such time table is revised by the issuing authority giving tile petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Let a plain copy of this order be given to the learned Advocates for both sides duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) on undertaking to pray for and obtain certified copy of this order.