Judgment Benerjee, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge allowing the writ petitioner application on merit. 2. The facts are briefly indicated as follows:- The writ petitioner/opposite parties in this appeal are holders of permanent stage carriage permits on the rote Calcutta to Siliguri and vice versa (hereinafter referred to as the said route). The State Transport Authority, West Bengal, appellant herein selected the respondents in the said route in accordance with the provisions laid down in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (since repealed). The permanents permits were initially for five years and the same were renewed subsequently upto 2nd August, 1995. On the strength of the permanent permits so granted, the respondents were plying their respective vehicles in the said route as non-air-conditioned Super Express Service. Each respondent, according to the terms of the after letter, have been performing a “single trip” each day in the said route. There is no dispute that the distance of the route in question is 608 Kilometers (one side). 3. The respondent contended that since they were performing one trip only on a single day, from each said, practically they were plying their respective vehicles in the said route for a period of fifteen days in a month from each said or in otherwords every alternative day for each side. In view of the condition specified in the offer letters, the respondents could not ply two vehicles from terminus (Calcutta and Siliguri) on a single day on the strength of their single permit. According to the respondents there is a heavy demand or the commuters in the said route and as such the single trip by each vehicle is not adequate to meet the need of the commuters. 4. In the backdrop of these facts, the respondents took out detailed representations to the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, being 30th April, 1987 and submitted that the respondents should be allowed to give two trips on a single day by two separate vehicles from the two ends of the route for maintaining service each day from each side. After submission of the petition dated 30th April, 1987, the respondents continuously pursued their representation fro two trips by each respondent daily. After submission of the petition dated 30th April, 1987, the respondents continuously pursued their representation fro two trips by each respondent daily. It appears that thereafter they took out another representation dated 10th August, 1990 to the Chairman, State Transport Authority, West Bengal, contending inter alia that they may be allowed to give two trips from two ends by two separate vehicles on each days and they may be permitted to keep one bus as a standby and/or auxiliary vehicle for meeting the emergent situations in case of breakdown or any of the vehicles and gave undertakings that they would place their additional vehicles within three months from the dated of grant of such permission. 5. After the petitions dated 30th April, 1987 and 10th August, 1990 according to the respondents/petitioners they pursued their applications with due diligence for having round trips or two trips. Since the said two petitions were not considered by the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, the respondents again submitted representations dated 15th November, 1991; 20th November, 1991; 25th November, 1991 and 16th December, 1991. 6. On receipt of the said petitions and/or representations from the respondents, the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, decided to discuss the issue in question in its meeting dated 18th December, 1991. The respondents came to consideration of their cases. “Agenda Note Item No. 7 Sub: To consider the prayer of Calcutta-Siliguri Bus Owners' Association fro endorsement of an additional vehicle in their permit on the route Calcutta-Siliguri. The S.T.A./W.B. granted six permanent permits in 1985 to (1) Sri Rabindranath Benrjee & Ors., (2) M/s. Modern Travels, (3) Shri Pravas Sinha, (4) Shri Santosh Chowdhury, (5) Shri Goutam Saha, (6) Sri Rathindranath Gupta & Ors., on the inter-regional route Calcutta-Siliguri for single trip with one vehicle. The distance of the route is 608 Kms. They submitted representations on 30.4.87 and 10.8.90 before the S.T.A./W.B. for consideration of their prayer for endorsement of an additional vehicle in the permit. Their contention is that they have been maintaining the service for such a long route by one vehicle. Maintenance of service by one vehicle is not possible now. Due to the rode condition they cannot maintain the regularity of the service as a result, there is public commotion and they are to face agitation as the route is an important one connecting two important place of this State. Maintenance of service by one vehicle is not possible now. Due to the rode condition they cannot maintain the regularity of the service as a result, there is public commotion and they are to face agitation as the route is an important one connecting two important place of this State. Moreover, they perform round trips for 15 days a month but they are to pay the salaries etc. of their staff for one month. If the vehicle needs repair or if there is any accident occurs they are to stop the plying of their vehicles as a result they are to incur heavy financial loss. So they have submitted a further prayer to the S.T.A./W.B. for endorsing an another vehicle in the permit. In this connection it may be mentioned here that the S.T.A./W.B. have endorsed a second vehicle on the permit Calcutta-Chandipur (single trip) covering a distance of 400 Kms. & Calcutta-Singhpur (single trip) covering a distance of 400 Kms. above for Siliguri performing better service to the commuters whereas the distance of Calcutta-Siliguri is more than 800 Kms. In view of the above procedure their prayer deserves sympathetic consideration. They have stated that they have ready vehicle to spare of additional vehicle if their prayer is granted. The matter may be placed before the S.T.A./W.B. for sympathetic consideration.” 7. In the meantime the respondents' writ petition came to learn that the S.T.A. on similar situations had permitted for others to pay two vehicles from ends on each day and whereas in spite of this position the S.T.A. West Bengal, was not allowing the prayer of the respondents' and in spite of the aforesaid Agenda Specified hereinbefore. 8. Finding no other alternative and more particularly when the S.T.A. was not taking action in the matter and extending same benefits as in other cases, the respondents filed a writ application before the learned Single Judge upon notice to the appellants. 9. 8. Finding no other alternative and more particularly when the S.T.A. was not taking action in the matter and extending same benefits as in other cases, the respondents filed a writ application before the learned Single Judge upon notice to the appellants. 9. The learned Single Judge upon hearing the parties passed the following order:- “Having regard to the principles laid in the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, and considering the facts and circumstances of this particular case, I direct the respondents to allow the each petitioners to give “two trips on a single day” in the route Calcutta to Siliguri and vice versa against their permanent stage carriage permits and such two trips and/or round trips will be endorsed by the respondents in the permanent stage carriage permits Parts ‘A’ and ‘B’ as early as possible preferably within a week from the date of this order so that traveling public do not suffer. The petitioners will be entitled to keep one additional and/or auxiliary vehicle against their permanent stage carriage permits and to ply such vehicle to meet and emergent situation i.e. in the case of breakdown of any of the vehicle. It is made clear that this order is confined to the petitioners only and will not be cited as a precedent. The application is thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.” 10. After communication of the order dated 3rd March, 1992 the Secretary, S.T.A. issued Memo No. 2483/S.T.A. dated Calcutta the 7th March, 1992 and communicated the following order:- “reference to your letter dated 4.3.92 on the subject noted above I am directed to say that in compliance with the order passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Paritosh Kr. Mukherjee on 3.8.92, the petitioners mentioned above are allowed to operate trips, one trip from either end of the route, Calcutta to Siliguri, initially for a period of six (6) weeks.” 11. On receipt of the said communication the matter was mentioned before the learned Single Judge on 9th March, 1992 and again in the presence of the parties the learned Single Judge clarified the order dated 3rd March, 1992 to the effect that the respondents are directed to endorse the round trips in the permanent stage carriage permits, Part ‘A’ and Part ‘B’ of the petitioners, on permanent basis and/or permanently and not on temporary basis. It was also made clear that the petitioners will be entitled to keep one additional and/or auxiliary vehicle against permanent sage carriage permits on permanent basis. The order dated 3rd March, 1992 was clarified to the said extent. 12. Thereafter, the S.T.A. preferred this appeal along with an application for stay before the Hon’ble Appeal Court against the said two orders dated 3rd March, 1992 and 9th March, 1992. The Hon’ble Chief Justice N.P. Singh and the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee passed certain interim directions on 2nd April, 1992. 13. From the order of the Division Bench it would be found that the Court directed the S.T.A. to take a final decision on the question within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. 14. Mr. Dilip Seth, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants drew the attention of this Court with regard to a decision of the S.T.A. taken pursuant to the directions of the appeal Court dated 2nd April, 1992 about the consideration of the question of round trip and submitted that the prayer for round trip was rejected by the S.T.A. under Memo No. 9129/S.T.A. dated Calcutta the 8th September, 1992 the Deputy Secretary of the S.T.A. West Bengal, communicated the decision of the S.T.A. about round trip. The said communication runs as follows:- “In continuation of this office letter No. 8323/S/T.A. dated 4.8.1992, I am directed to say that Shri Santosh Kumar Chowdhury representing all the petitioners appeared before the S.T.A., West Bengal, on 10.8.92 and was duly heard. The submission made by Shri Chowdhury was duly considered by the S.T.A. An extract from the resolution adopted by the S.T.A., West Bengal in the matter is given below:- “He could not show any paper/document where permits were granted in favour of any private operator from Calcutta to Siliguri allowing them to pay on round trip daily. His argument in favour of his claim for granting round trip daily from Siliguri to Calcutta and also to allow him to keep one additional stand by and/or spare vehicle does not, therefore, hold good. However, the matter was considered by the S.T.A. threadbare. The historical background behind granting permanent permits to the petitioner and other permit holders was that the number of buses plying on the route at that time was not much. However, the matter was considered by the S.T.A. threadbare. The historical background behind granting permanent permits to the petitioner and other permit holders was that the number of buses plying on the route at that time was not much. The State Transport Corporation could not also provide adequate service to the commuters. Subsequently, the policy of the State Government thoroughly changed. The Government decided to provide more and more buses through the STU, to render maximum service to the public and not to depend upon private operators. The decision regarding the prayer made by the writ petitioners and others could not, therefore, be finalized by the S.T.A. At present buses of the C.S.T.C. ? N.B.S.T.C. and S.B.S.T.C. are plying in large numbers. S.T.A. did not, therefore, consider it necessary to give any permit in favour of any private operator. Besides, it was observed, if further permits are granted on the route and other private operators would also press for round trip in their favour. In view of the circumstances, the prayer of the writ petitioners for round trip service on the route Calcutta-Siliguri was rejected by the S.T.A., West Bengal, particularly since this is a route notified in favour of State Transport Corporation.” 15. Mr. Dilip Seth, appearing for the appellants also submitted that the directions contained in the orders appealed against amount to grant of fresh permit in view of the provision contained in Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It has been contended that increase in the number of trips and/or number of vehicles in a permit already granted would amount to granting new permits. 16. The learned Counsel also submitted that having regard to the provisions of Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which prohibit granting permits in notified route under the provisions of Chapter-VI of the Act, the directions passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. 17. It has been further submitted that on an analogy of the provisions of Section 70(1)(c) and (d) and Section 72(2) and Section 80(3) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, the direction passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. 17. It has been further submitted that on an analogy of the provisions of Section 70(1)(c) and (d) and Section 72(2) and Section 80(3) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, the direction passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. According to the appellants permission to ply another vehicle if allowed this will be a case of granting altogether new permit and recourse to be taken under Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and on the aforesaid facts the learned Single Judge ought not to have passed the aforesaid directions. 18. Mr. Asok De, Ld. Advocate for the writ petitioner/opposite party submits that under Section 70(1)(c) and (d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), it is permissible to apply for a stage carriage permit which will cover more than one vehicle in relation to a route or area, without the need for applying for a separate permit in respect of each vehicles. Section 70(1)(c) and (d) of the Act runs as follows:- “(c) the minimum and maximum number of daily trips proposed to be provided and the timetable of the normal trips.” “(d) the number of vehicles intended to be kept in reserve to maintain the service and to provide for special occasions.” Mr. De, draws our attention to clauses (i), (iii) and (xvii) of Section 72(2) of the said Act. The said clauses are as follows:- “(i) that the vehicles shall be used only in a specified area, or on a specified route or routes; (iii) the minimum and maximum number of daily trips to be provided in relation to any route or area generally or on specified days and occasions; (xvii) the vehicles to be kept as reserve by the holder of the permit to maintain the operation and to provide for special occasions.” 19. Mr. De, also draws our attention to a decision reported in (1) AIR 1980 Karnataka 199. Although the said decision is a decision on the repealed Act, but with regard to the specific sections of the repealed Act and the present Act as mentioned hereinbefore there is no statutory change, Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said decision are as follows:- “10. Although the said decision is a decision on the repealed Act, but with regard to the specific sections of the repealed Act and the present Act as mentioned hereinbefore there is no statutory change, Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said decision are as follows:- “10. It is seen from Clause (b) of Section 46 that it is permissible to apply for a stage carriage permit which will cover more then one vehicle in relation to a route or area and that it is nit necessary to apply for a separate permit in respect of each of such vehicles. Likewise, it is seen from Cls. (i), (x) and (xvi) of Section 48 that a stage carriage permit my be issued authrising the use of more than one vehicle on a specified route or in a specified area and that it is not necessary that there should be a separate stage carriage permit in suspect of each of such vehicles. If a stage carriage permit when originally granted, can cover more than one vehicle to be operated on a route or in a area, there is no reason why the conditions of such permit cannot be altered to authorize more number of vehicles to be operated under such permit. We do not see any good reason to insist that the holder of a stage carriage permit who intends to increase the number of vehicles operating on a route or in an area covered by such permit, should apply for a new permit and not ask for variation of the conditions of such permit by increasing the number of vehicles to be operated under that permit. 11. However, Mr. Datar contended that sub-section (8) of Section 57 which deals with an applicator for variation of the conditions of a permit, provided for increase the number of vehicles covered by only a contract carriage permit or a public carrier's permit that in that sub-section there is no mention of increasing the number of vehicles covered by a stage carriage permit and hence the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from such non-mention, is that increasing the number of vehicles operating under a stage carriage permit, is outside the ambit of variation of the conditions of a stage carriage permit. This argument of Mr. This argument of Mr. Datar overlooks the important distention between a contract carriage permit and a public carrier's permit on the one hand and a stage carriage permit on the other. A contract carriage permit or a public carrier's permit does not contain any condition as to the number of tripe that a contract carriage or a public carrier can perform. But in a stage carriage permit, the maximum number of trips which the stage carriage can perform on the specified route or in the specified area will be specified. Hence that sub-section speaks of increasing the number of trips in the case of a stage carriage permit and increasing the number of vehicles in case of a contract carriage permit or a public curler's permit. As said earlier an increase in the number of trips on a specified route or in a specified area, can be effected either by increasing the frequency of operation of the existing vehicles or by increasing the number of vehicles. The expression 'by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum' occurring in that sub-section is, in our opinion, wide enough to include an increase to the number of vehicles covered by a stage carriage permit." 20. Mr. De submits that since the respondents are holders of permanent stage carriage permits in the route in question, it is unnecessary for the respondents to apply for a new permit when they intend to increase the number of vehicles operating in the said route. Mr. De submits that in the instant case in the permit itself there was no mention that they will be giving only one trip. In this connection Mr. De draws oar attention to a Division Bench decision of Rajasthan High Court reported in (2) AIR 1970 Rajasthan 149 and Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the said decision are as follows:- "13. With great respect, we are of the view that Section 57(8) of the Act will not be attracted unless in the permit, a condition has been attached laying down the maximum number of services proponed to be provided in relation to the route. The legislature has chosen to treat an application to vary the condition of any permit only when it is either for the inclusion of a new route or it is for increasing the number of services above the specified maximum. The legislature has chosen to treat an application to vary the condition of any permit only when it is either for the inclusion of a new route or it is for increasing the number of services above the specified maximum. In the case of a new route, the permit holder is seeking to include in his route another length of route which was not included in his permit. Obviously there is good reason to treat such an application as an application for the grant of a new permit. This Court has even before the amendment of Section 57(8) held that an application for inclusion of a new route must be deemed an application for a fresh permit. The other case to justify such treatment is in which it is prayed that the application be permitted to increase the number of services above the specified maximum. We have already examined Sec. 47 and the relevant rules for the form of application for permit and the form of the permit. It is only in the case of a stage carriage permit in which the maximum number of services to be performed have to be specified that the question of application of Section 57(8) may arise and not to any other case. Ordinarily such a condition may be found in that permit for a service of stage carriage. There may be an exceptional case when there is an application for a permit to use particular vehicles all a stage carriage and the undertaking is given that vehicle will perform the minimum and maximum number of daily services. But unless the maximum number of services is specified in the permit, there is no occasion to apply provision of Section 57 (8). The reason is that in such a case the permit holder must be deemed to have exhausted his permit if he was already performing services upto certain maximum number of service and if he wants to run more services, his application must be treated for the grant of a new permit. The observation of the learned Single Judge is that when by the time-table fixed numbers of services are to be run and no option is given to run more services, it must be taken that the maximum number of services permitted is the number of services provided under the time-table. The observation of the learned Single Judge is that when by the time-table fixed numbers of services are to be run and no option is given to run more services, it must be taken that the maximum number of services permitted is the number of services provided under the time-table. This view, with great respect, is not acceptable to us specially when we find that under Section 48(3)(ii) there is a specific reference that a condition in the following terms may be imposed:- "The maximum and minimum number of daily service will be maintained in relation to any route or area generally or on a specified days and occasions." We cannot ignore the word "specified" which definitely means that there must be a specific mention in the permit of the maximum number of services. In our opinion, Section 57(8) will not be attracted unless in a permit the condition is attached laying down the maximum number of services in relation to a route. 14. It is next contended before us on behalf of the petitioner that the result of granting three more trips to non-petitioners numbered 3 to 22 was as if they were granted three new permits on the Bikaner-Nokha route and, therefore, the application of the non-petitioners for granting more trips must be treated as if they had applied for the grant of three more new permits. This argument is obviously untenable as such a request by the existing permit holder cannot be treated as a fresh application for the grant of a new permit unless the provisions of Section 57(8) are attracted to it. In our opinion, this provision of the statute can be invoked only when a condition is attached to a permit laying down the maximum number of services in relation to a route. If such a condition is not therein the permit then application for allowing few more trips by the same vehicle or vehicles cannot taken to be an application for fresh permit." 21. Mr. De further draws our attention to a decision reported in (3) AIR 1984 Karnataka 221. There it was held that the term "vary" or "variation" not defined in the Motor Vehicles Act means to make it different or change. The said Act does not prohibit an increase of a vehicle from the opposite direction to maintain continues service consistent with the object of the Act. There it was held that the term "vary" or "variation" not defined in the Motor Vehicles Act means to make it different or change. The said Act does not prohibit an increase of a vehicle from the opposite direction to maintain continues service consistent with the object of the Act. It cannot be contended that under section 80(3) of the said Act, the respondents could not be allowed to operate additional vehicles from the opposite direction, since such a direction would amount to restricting the meaning of the term and would allow only maintaining a service on each alternate day. This is contrary to the interest of the traveling public. In case of other traveling system such as in the case of Railway a train service from each direction is maintained on each day, so that the traveling public may avail of the said service dally. 22. With regard to the question of restrictions on the grant of permit in respect of a notified area and/or notified route as contemplated in Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it appears to us that the petitioners are permanent stage carriage grantees prior to the issuance of such notification. Secondly, increase of a new vehicle from opposite direction, in our view, does not amount to increase of the permits and such permission to ply an additional vehicle does not also mean that an altogether new permit has been granted in favour of the grantees. Thirdly, such notification is not an embargo to ply additional vehicle from the opposite direction when the writ petitioners have been granted with permanent stage carriage permits prior to issuance or the notification in question. 23. Mr. De contends that the appellant S.T.A. has allowed the plying of additional vehicles from the opposite directions on the same day by the respective permit holders in the following routes:- (i) Jaipur to Calcutta, (ii) Calcutta to Bishnupur, (iii) Siliguri to Maida, (iv) Siliguri to Berhampore, (v) Siligari to Patna via Purnea & Muzaffarpur, (vi) Siliguri to Balurghat, (vii) Siliguri to Farakka, (viii) Siliguri to Suri, (ix) Siliguri to Muzaffarpur via Daikhola and Purnea, (x) Howrah to Jaleswar via Chandaneswar 24. Mr. De finally draws our attention with regard to an order dated 5.4.92 passed in Matter No. 5074 of 1992 by an another Division Bench of this Court. Mr. De finally draws our attention with regard to an order dated 5.4.92 passed in Matter No. 5074 of 1992 by an another Division Bench of this Court. The said order runs as follows:- "The Court: After bearing the learned Advocates appearing for the parties we pass the following order:- The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to issue two separate stage carriage permits in the route Howrah to Jaleswat via Chanda neswer and Digha to perform round trip per day as per approved timings. The vehicles will initiate their journey from Howrah. S.T.A. in determining the time schedule will take into account the timing already given to Anti Kumar Panda. This order disposes of the appeal as well as the application. Filing of Paper Book is dispensed with. Undertakings will stand discharged. All parties to act on a signed copy of the minutes of this order on usual undertaking" 25. After hearing the respective contention of the parties, we find no infirmity in the orders appealed against. We agree with the decisions cited by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners. We find no merits in the submissions of the appellants. It appears that the State Transport Authority, West Bengal has consistently allowed the other operators to ply additional vehicles from the opposite direction in large number of long distant routes and because of this practice and/or precedents there can be no justiciable reason as to why the writ petitioners will not also be permitted to ply additional vehicles from the opposite direction as prayed for. The S.T.A. ought to have allowed the prayer of the writ petitioners to ply additional vehicles from opposite direction in the larger public interests for maintaining service from Calcutta and from Siliguri each day. The writ petitioners have been apparently discriminated by not permitting them to ply additional vehicles from opposite direction on the same day and in view of the equality clause the decision of the S.T.A. taken on the basis of the appeal Court's order dated 2nd April, 1992 is also erroneous, illegal and the same cannot be sustained in our view when a permit is granted on a route, the grantee should be allowed at least one trip from each side of the route. Otherwise it would not be a case of maintaining service. Otherwise it would not be a case of maintaining service. Maintaining service means maintaining regular service and regular service means to ply the bus from two ends on the same day. It is not a case of granting permit to ply on every alternative day or once or twice a week, but plying it on every day i.e. dally service. 26. Considering the question of convenience of the public as also public interests and having heard the respective submissions of the parties, we do not find any merits in the appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. The order of the learned trial Court dated 3rd March, 1992 and 9th March, 1992 are affirmed. We, however, make it clear that the writ petitioners would be permitted to ply two separate vehicles on each day from the two opposite directions i.e. Calcutta to Siliguri and vice versa against their permanent permits on permanent basis and such two trips on a single day by two separate vehicles would be endorsed by the State Transport Authority West Bengal in the permanent stage carriage permits of the writ petitioners being Part 'A' and Part 'B' within a week from the date of communication of this order so that the traveling public may not suffer. Since the writ petitioners will ply two separate vehicles from each direction on a single day, the S.T.A. is directed to issue another 'B' part of the permit covering the other vehicle. All the other directions contained in the orders dated 3rd March, 1992 and 9th March, 1992 as passed by the learned trial Court stand. The added respondents who are plying on the same route would also be entitled to the benefit of this order. There will be no order as to costs. All parties are to act on a signed copy of the minutes of the operative part of this judgment on the usual undertaking. Chakravarty, J. ; I agree.