JUDGMENT The petitioner, Shri Harendra Kumar Biswas is the registered owner of vehicle No. W B 51-0546 and is a holder of permanent stage carriage permit for the route Krishnanagar-Tarapith via Berhampur and Rampurhat. He has been plying the bus on that route on the basis of fixed time-table approved by Regional Transport Authority. Nadia since 1989. The following is that fixed time-table on which the petitioner has been plying his bus on that route: Up Trip Krishnanagar Berhampur Rampurhat Tarapith Dep. 5-30 Arrv. 7-30 Arrv. 10-00 Arrv. 10-35 Dep. 7-55 Dep. 10-10 Down Trip Tarapith Rampurhat Berhampur Krishnanagar Dep. 11-40 Arrv. 12-05 Arrv. 14-30 Arrv 17-00 Dep. 12-20 Dep. 15-00 It appears that the respondent. No. 5, Shri Utpal Biswas is the owner of another vehicle and he has been plying his bus with route permit for that route on another fixed time-table meant for his bus. The departure time for his bus is 6-45, Krishnanagar and arrival 11-50, Tarapith. For return trip of his bus, the departure time is 12-55, Tarapith and arrival 17-55, Krishnanagar. The fixed time-tables were however changed by the R. T. A., Nadia in 1992 and converted into a rotational time-table with same timings requiring the petitioner and the respondent No.5 to ply their buses on that route alternately on the timings of the rotational time-table, so that the one who will ply his bus as the first trip of the time-table on any day will ply his bus on the next day as second trip of that time-table and the other who plied his bus as second trip on the preceding day would ply his bus as the first trip on the following day and so on. The petitioner objected to the introduction of such rotational time-table in place of his fixed time-table and he moved this court by a writ petition which was disposed of in appeal by a Division Bench of this court in F. M. A. T. No 421 of 1993, by order dated 10.3.93. By that order the Regional Transport Authority was directed to take a decision in the matter in accordance with law. By that order the Regional Transport Authority was directed to take a decision in the matter in accordance with law. It was however made dear, by the learned Judges of the Division Bench that they had not expressed any view on the rival contentions of the parties on merits and all question taken in the writ application and the appeal were left open to be decided by the Regional Transport Authority in accordance with law. Pursuant to that, the R. T. A, Nadia considered the matter and deeded in favour of rotational time-table with timings to be alternately followed by the two bus owners, namely, the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 and the decision was communicated by the Secretary, R. T. A, Nadia, under his memo No. 889(2) MV dated 20.4.93 which is Annexure-G. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the said memo dated 20.4.93 regarding rotational time-table required to be followed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner's contention is that down from 1989 he has been plying his bus on the fixed time-table approved by the R. T. A. and there is no valid reason now for asking him to follow and share a rotational time-table in place of his fixed time-table, particularly when he has built up a reputation for rendering satisfactory service to the travelling public on his fixed time-table during all these years and there is absolutely no complain from any quarter in respect of the service rendered by him on his fixed time-table. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the rotational time-table is sought to be introduced by the R. T. A. at the instance of the respondent for the sole purpose of giving an advantage to the respondent No.5 at the cost of the petitioner and against the goodwill earned by the petitioner by his sincere and satisfactory service rendered during all these years to the travelling public on that route on his fixed time-table. 3. Section 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 requires that an application for a stage carriage permit shall contain certain particulars mentioned therein including ‘(c) the minimum and maximum number of daily trips proposed to be provided and the time-table of the normal trips’. 3. Section 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 requires that an application for a stage carriage permit shall contain certain particulars mentioned therein including ‘(c) the minimum and maximum number of daily trips proposed to be provided and the time-table of the normal trips’. Section 71(2) authorises the R. T. A. to refuse to grant a stage carriage permit if it appears from any time-table furnished that the provisions of this Act relating to the speed at which the vehicle may be driven are likely to be contravened but in that case before such refusal an opportunity shall be given to the applicant to amend the time-table so as to conform to the said provisions. Section 72(2) provides that the R. T. A, while granting a stage carriage permit, may attach to the permit anyone or more of the conditions mentioned in the said sub-section (2) including the condition ‘(iv) that copies of the time-table of the stage carriage approved by the Regional Transport Authority shall be exhibited on the vehicles and at specified stands and halts on the route or within the area’. Clause (xxii) of sub-section (2) of Section 72 however provides inter alia that the R. T. A. may, after giving notice of not less than one month, (a) vary the conditions of the permit and (b) attach to the permit further conditions. The proviso to rule 118 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles rules, 1989 provides inter alia that the Transport Authority may also attach to the permit a condition that the time-table as originally approved may be subject to such amendments/changes as may seem to the Transport Authority to be reasonable and that, in case of such amendment, if any, the interest of the State Transport undertaking operating services on the route or in the area should be given priority. Rule 161 provides for variation of permit. Rule 161 provides for variation of permit. In view of the said rule upon application made by the permit holder or by any person or of its own motion the R. T. A. or State Transport Authority may vary the permit or any condition thereof after giving a notice of not less than one month, Where however representation has been made by any person in connection with the grant of a stage carriage permit, or a goods carriage permit the Transport Authority shall not, subsequent to the issue of the permit, vary the permit or any condition thereof in a manner prejudicial to any person against whom such representation has been made unless the said Authority afforded such person a reasonable opportunity of making a representation in respect of the proposed variation of the permit or any condition thereof. Such opportunity of making a representation may however be dispensed with in circumstances mentioned in sub-rule (3) of rule 161 which are however not relevant in the present context, I have given above a bird's-eye view of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules mainly for the purpose of emphasising that the approved time-table for a vehicle under a stage carriage permit is not liable to be changed arbitrarily or capriciously. 4. In the petitioner's stage carriage permit which is Annexure-A to the writ petition it is noted in clause (21) that the service shall be operated according to the time-table approved by the Regional Transport Authority and within such margin of deviation from the approved time-table as the Regional Transport Authority may from time to time specify. Clause (31) of the permit provides that the Regional Transport Authority may, after' giving notice of not less than one month, vary the conditions of the permit as well as attach to the permit further conditions. It is needless to mention that none of these terms included in the permit can be construed in a manner as to authorise the R. T. A. to change the petitioner's approved time-table in derogation of the proviso to Rule 118 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 which authorises the Transport Authority to attach to the permit a condition that the originally approved time-table may be subject to such amendments/changes as may seem to the Transport Authority to be reasonable. Therefore the R. T. A. cannot assume to itself, in derogation of the proviso to rule 118 of the Rules, a power to change a time-table without being backed by reasonable ground for doing So, The time-table cannot be changed arbitrarily or capriciously. Annexure-X to the supplementary affidavit affirmed by the petitioner is the proceeding of the meeting of the R. T. A. Board, Nadia held on 3.4.93 in which it was resolved that the petitioner and the respondent No.5 would ply their vehicles on the concerned route by following the time-table on rotational basis. By reason of this rotational time-table the petitioner, who was all along plying his vehicle on the fixed time-table approved for his vehicle, would miss his original time-table every alternate day. In one place of the said resolution of the R. T. A. it is stated that both the vehicles shall ply vise-versa observing the prescribed-table for the sake of justice and equity, and in another place it is stated that the timings are to be followed scrupulously by both the registered owners on rotational basis until further orders for the sake of better public service and removal of inconvenience and trouble of the travelling public. It is not spelt out in the resolution nor otherwise indicated before me as to how the introduction of this rotational time-table will ensure better public service or will remove the inconvenience and trouble of the traveiling public. Nothing is indicated in the resolution nor otherwise canvassed before me as to what would be the inconvenience or trouble of the travelling public if the earlier fixed time-tables were allowed to continue. There are only two buses on the route. The petitioner's bus was plying at a particular time every day and the respondent No. 5's bus was also plying at a particular but different time everyday. It is not understood nor could it be indicated before me as to how it could be better for public service or what inconvenience and trouble of the travelling public could be removed and in what manner, if instead of plying on fixed time-tables the two buses were plied on alternate timings on rotational basis. The point of justice and equity as has been mentioned in the concerned resolution is also a verbosity without being supported by any elaboration or indication of its basis. The point of justice and equity as has been mentioned in the concerned resolution is also a verbosity without being supported by any elaboration or indication of its basis. Before me also nothing could be indicated as to what aspect of the abstract term 'justice and equity' was involved in the matter. There is no doubt that the R. T. A. can change a time-table for any vehicle but such change must be based on sustainable reason. If there is no complain against the petitioner from the travelling public or from any quarter and if no convenience or interest of the travelling public is involved in the matter, nor there exists any other valid ground of administrative nature or otherwise, for change, in that event, there is no reason to deprive the petitioner of his time-table on every alternate day merely on the request of owner of another bus operating on the same route on a different time-table and for serving the interest of that another bus owner. Neither is it the contention on behalf of the respondent; nor is to shown to be the case that plying of his bus by the other owner on his own time-table, as was being done so long, was not economically viable and the bus plying on such time-table on that route was therefore likely to be withdrawn from the route for economic reason thereby causing inconvenience to the travelling public unless the owner of that bus was afforded opportunity to share the facility of the other time-table by excluding therefrom every alternate day the owner of the bus hitherto plying on that time-table. It is not that by the rotational time-table sought to be introduced in the place of hitherto existing fixed time-tables, the petitioner is being exposed to competition but in fact he is being excluded every alternate day from the time-table he was hitherto following thereby depriving him of the same on every alternate day for no sustainable reason. The resolution of the R.T.A., in the circumstances, which does not seem to be informed by any valid reason regarding the change of the petitioner's time-table therefore cannot be sustained. The resolution of the R.T.A., in the circumstances, which does not seem to be informed by any valid reason regarding the change of the petitioner's time-table therefore cannot be sustained. The impugned Memo No. 889(2) MV dated 20.4.93 issued by the Secretary, R. T. A., Nadia being Annexure-G to the writ application as well as the resolution of the R.T.A. Board, Nadia dated 3.4.1993 so far it is relates to agenda No. 15 thereof which is Annexure-X to the supplementary affidavit are hereby quashed. The writ application stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.