Judgment : Majumdar, J.: This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 20th January, 1994, passed by a learned Judge of this Court by which the learned Trial Judge rejected the prayer for interim order. The learned Trial Judge further directed by the said order that any grant of stage carriage permit will abide by the decision on the writ application. The directions for affidavit was given. 2. The appellants have come up against this order rejecting their prayer for interim order. When the said application was moved, it was submitted by the appellants as also the respondent that the writ petition may also be disposed of by this Court and all the parties agreed to this suggestion. The direction for filing Paper Book was given and the appeal bas now come up before us for disposal, and also the writ petition. 3. The appellants filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for withdrawal or cancellation of the decision of the State Transport Authority dated 15th December, 1993 as communicated by Memo dated 27th December, 1993, being Annexure 'N' to the writ petition. The Annexure 'N' to the writ petition is to the effect that the State Transport Authority considered the report of the Chairman, Hooghly R. T. A. and D. M. Hooghly regarding plying of 10 seater buses in Hooghly district. The State Transport Authority after due deleberation, in exercise of powers under the second proviso to Rule 163 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), decided to fix the minimum seating accommodation for stage carriage as 10 only in the 52 routes specified in the said notification and limited to the total number of 150 vehicles. By the said notification the S. T. A. further directed that while introducing new 10 seater stage carriages due regard to the Rules 105 and 107 of the said Rules should be given and the fare should be fixed as stage carriages. 4. The writ petitioners, the appellants before us, claim that they are operators of their respective stage carriage vehicles plying in different routes of the district of Hooghly under valid stage carriage permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Hooghly. 5. 4. The writ petitioners, the appellants before us, claim that they are operators of their respective stage carriage vehicles plying in different routes of the district of Hooghly under valid stage carriage permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Hooghly. 5. It is the case of the appellants that in course of plying the stage carriage vehicle the appellants found that at least 147 Hindusthan Motor Trekkers were plying on different routes as stage carriage causing financial loss to the appellants' business. Accordingly, on 18th June, 1993, the appellant No.1 being the Secretary of Hooghly District Bus Association nude a representation before the Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Hooghly, inviting his attention to the illegal grant of stage carriage permit to Hindusthan Motor Trekker (for short Trekker) operators. According to the appellants, the Trekkers ought to have been registered as contract carriage in terms of the Memo dated 20th May, 1993. Thereafter, according to the appellants, several representations were made, but the concerned authorities failed to take any action on the said representation. 6. The appellants allege that there being no provision of Trekkers in the Motor Vehicles Act and in view of the absence of classification of Trekkers by the Transport Department, the grant of stage carriage permit for carrying regular passengers by Trekkers was without jurisdiction and consequently bad. 7. Being dissatisfied with the inaction on the part of the respondents, the appellants on or about 22nd July, 1993 moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution in this Court challenging the purported action of the respondents. The learned Trial Judge of this Court after hearing the parties was pleased to dispose of the said application by directing the Regional Transport Authority, Hooghly to consider the representation dated 18th June, 1993, submitted by the Secretary, Hooghly District Bus Association anti dispose of the same by a reasoned order within 8 weeks from the date of communication of the said order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the other concerned operators. The learned Judge also made an interim order to the effect that pending the disposal of the said representation, the R. T. A. will not grant any stage carriage permit in respect of any Trekker. Pursuant to the said direction of the learned Judge on the said application, the Regional Transport Authority. The learned Judge also made an interim order to the effect that pending the disposal of the said representation, the R. T. A. will not grant any stage carriage permit in respect of any Trekker. Pursuant to the said direction of the learned Judge on the said application, the Regional Transport Authority. Hooghly considered the representation of the appellants after giving hearing to the appellants and others. It was contended before the R. T. A. by the appellants as also other stage carriage operators that the Trekkers did not come within the purview of sub-Section 40 of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as the same have not been constructed and adapted to carry more than six passengers for stages of the journey. 8. By a Memo No. 1935/MV dated 14th September, 1993, the District Magistrate, Hooghly, being the Chairman, Regional Transport Authority forwarded a copy of his findings to the appellant No.1 and others. The Chairman, Regional Transport Authority held that Trekker could be registered as stage carriage in terms of sub-Section 40 of Section 2 of the said Act. A copy of the order of the Chairman is Annexure 'I' to the writ petition. The Chairman, inter alia, found that there was no legal bar to register a Trekker as stage carriage. It was also found by him that narrow roads and bad condition of roads in the Hooghly district made the buses difficult to ply and the strength of buses plied by private owners had not been increasing to cope with the commutal load. The Chairman also found that the bus owners were diverting buses to contract carriage beyond the permitted strength and this caused immense suffering to the people. Passenger resentment had, however, gone down after introduction of Hindusthan Motor Trekker as stage carriage. 9. The appellants have challenged the said order of the Chairman, R. T. A., Hooghly as also the decision of the State Transport Authority being communicated to the appellants, on several grounds taken in the writ petition. Passenger resentment had, however, gone down after introduction of Hindusthan Motor Trekker as stage carriage. 9. The appellants have challenged the said order of the Chairman, R. T. A., Hooghly as also the decision of the State Transport Authority being communicated to the appellants, on several grounds taken in the writ petition. It may be stated that the Annexure 'N' as stated above is the extract from the proceedings of the meeting of the State Transport Authority held on 15th December, 1993, it appears therefrom that the S. T. A. in exercise of the second proviso to Rule 163 of the Rules, 1989 decided to fix the minimum seating accommodation for stage carriage as 10 only in the 52 routes, as specified. 10. The learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that according to the definition of stage carriage in Section 2(40) of the said Act, the Trekkers by no means can be regarded as stage carriage. It has also been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that under the second proviso to Rule 163 of the said Rules, as relied on by the State Transport Authority, the State Transport Authority cannot treat the Trekker as stage carriage as that would be not in keeping with the definition of stage carriage as would appear in Section 2(40) of the said Act. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the main Rule 163 of the said Rules has mandatorily determined the minimum seating accommodation. The exercise of power by State Transport Authority under second proviso fixing the minimum accommodation to 10, is beyond jurisdiction and as such, bad. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that under Rule 163 of the said Rules excepting Calcutta and Howrah. no stage carriage shall be used and no permit shall authorise the use of any stage carriage having seating accommodation for less than 25 and by virtue of first proviso to the said Rule 163, where the condition of the road permits, the Regional Transport Authority has been empowered, as a special case, to authorise the use of stage carriages having seating accommodation for passengers up to 60 in number. It is the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the State Government by framing the said Rules intended to have stage carriage with seating accommodation over 25 and not in any case should be less than 25. It has also been submitted by the learned Counsel that by second proviso to Rule 163 the State Transport Authority which is a superior body to Regional Transport Authority had been given power to regulate further the minimum seating accommodation and the word "further" itself indicates that where the Regional Transport Authority, as a special case exercises its discretion to authorise seating capacity not exceeding sixty in such cases, the State Transport Authority will have jurisdiction to regulate the minimum seating capacity. 11. The learned Counsel appearing for the State Transport Authority has submitted that the interpretation of Rule 163, in particular second proviso as sought to be given by the learned Counsel for the appellants is not correct. The learned Counsel for the State Transport Authority submits that under second proviso to Rule 163 the "minimum" seating accommodation in a vehicle for operation as a stage carriage may be regulated further by the State Transport Authority in respect of certain routes or areas. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Transport Authority that the main Rule 163 provides that no stage carriage shall be used, and no permit shall authorise the use of any stage carriage having seating accommodation for less than 25 passengers. According to the learned Counsel for the Transport Authority, the State Transport Authority can further regulate the "minimum" seating accommodation of a vehicle in respect of certain routes and areas. As submitted by the learned Counsel for the Transport Authority, the State Transport Authority in certain circumstances and considering certain requirements of the particular area, is empowered to reduce further the seating accommodation of 25 passengers. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Transport Authority that, as would appear from the extract of the minutes of the meeting of the State Transport Authority, the State Transport Authority by exercising the power under the second proviso to Rule 163 has reduced the minimum seating accommodation to 10 considering the report to the Chairman, R. T. A., Hooghly as to the requirement of certain area and as to dirth of number of vehicles plying in particular routes. Considering the road conditions and other factors, the State Transport Authority decided to reduce the minimum seating accommodation and allowed the Trekker operators to ply their vehicle as stage carriage. 12. The learned Counsel appearing for the Trekker Operators has supported the argument of the learned Counsel for the State Transport Authority. The learned Counsel for the Trekker operators submits that the State Transport Authority keeping in mind the requirement of a particular area or a particular route may allow a vehicle to be treated as stage carriage reducing the minimum seating accommodation in exercise of powers under second proviso to Rule 163 and the State Transport Authority has rightly exercised such power considering the report of the Chairman, R. T. A. Hooghly. 13. Section 2(40) of the said Act defines stage carriage as follows :- " 'State carriage' means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward at separate fares paid by or for individual passengers, either for the whole journey or for stages of the journey". 14. Contract carriage has been defined in Section 2(7) which is as follows :- "Contract carriage means a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward and is engaged under a contract, whether expressed or implied for the use of such vehicle as a whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned therein and entered into by a person with a holder of a permit in relation to such vehicle or any person authorised by him in this behalf on a fixed or an agreed rate or sum. (a) on a time basis. whether or not with reference to any route or distance; or (b) from one point to another, and in either case, without stopping to pick up or set down passengers not included in the contract anywhere during the journey, and includes- (i) a maxicab ; and (ii) a motorcab notwithstanding that separate fares are changed for its passengers;" 15. whether or not with reference to any route or distance; or (b) from one point to another, and in either case, without stopping to pick up or set down passengers not included in the contract anywhere during the journey, and includes- (i) a maxicab ; and (ii) a motorcab notwithstanding that separate fares are changed for its passengers;" 15. It appears from the definition of contract carriage that a motor vehicle which carries passengers for hire or reward and is engaged under a contract whether expressed or implied for the use of such vehicle as a whole for carriage of passengers mentioned therein on a fixed or agreed rate or sum on a time basis or from one point to another without stopping to pick up or set down passengers not included in the contract anywhere during the journey. 16. Stage carriage as defined in Section 2(40) of the said Act. means a motor vehicle constructed of adapted to carry more than six passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward at separate fares paid by or for individual passengers either for the whole journey or for the stages of journey. It. therefore, appears that the stage carriage vehicle will carry more than six passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward at "separate fares" paid by or for individual passenger, either for the whole journey or "for stages" of the journey. This is not so in respect of contract carriage. It, therefore, appears that the minimum number of passengers to be carried by stage carriage is six. 17. Rule 163 of the said Rules is as follow:- "R. 163. Limitation of capacities of Stage Carriages- Save within the areas of Regional Transport Authorities of Calcutta and Howrah, no Stage Carriage shall be used, and no permit shall authorise the use of any Stage Carriage having seating accommodation for less than 25 (twenty five) passengers : Provided that where the condition of the road permits, the Regional Transport Authority, may as a special case, authorise the use of Stage Carriage having seating accommodation for passengers up to 60 (sixty) in number : Provided further that the minimum seating accommodation in a vehicle for operation as a Stage Carriage way be regulated further by the State Transport Authority in respect of certain routes and/or areas." 18. It would appear from the said Rule that except within the areas of Regional Transport Authorities of Calcutta and Howrah no stage carriage shall be used, and no permit shall authorise the use of any stage carriage having seating accommodation for less than 25(twenty-five) passengers. It would appear from the definition of stage carriage in Section 2(40), the minimum number of passengers to be carried under stage carriage is six, but under Rule 163 except in Calcutta and Howrah no stage carriage shall be used having seating accommodation for less than 25 (twenty-five) passengers. Under the first proviso of Rule 163 where the condition of the road permits, the Regional Transport Authority may, as a special case, authorise the use of stage carriage having seating accommodation of passengers upto 60 in number. It appears that there is no maximum number of passengers indicated in the main Rule but the Regional Transport Authority in certain cases allow the stage carriage to carry passengers upto 60, i.e. the vehicle having seating accommodation for 25 passengers being raised by the Regional Transport Authority, as a special case, upto 60 may ply as stage carriage and necessary permit may be granted. Under the second proviso to Rule 163 in certain other eases, considering the demand of certain routes and/or areas, the State Transport Authority may reduce further the minimum seating accommodation in a vehicle for operation as a stage carriage. Therefore, under this proviso; the State Transport Authority in respect of certain routes or areas may reduce further the minimum seating accommodation from 25 as indicated in the main Rule 163. But the stage carriage, as defined in Section 2(40) of the said Act, should be a vehicle carrying more than 6 passengers. Therefore, the State Transport Authority exercising powers under the second proviso of Rule 163 cannot, however, reduce the minimum seating accommodation less than six. 19. It appears from the impugned notification being Annexure 'N' to the writ petition, i.e. the extract from the proceedings of the meeting of the State Transport Authority held on 15th December, 1993, the State Transport Authority decided to fix the minimum seating accommodation for stage carriage as 10 only in the 52 routes as specified but not in respect of other routes or other areas. It appears to us that the State Transport Authority is fully empowered to reduce the minimum from 25 persons as provided in main Rule 163 of the Rules, but subject to section 2(40) of the said Act. It also appears to us that this power can only be exercised considering the peculiar conditions in some area and also in respect of certain routes or areas. It will appear from the Annexure 'N' that the descriptions of routes has been specified in the minutes itself numbering about 52 routes. It will further appear from the report of the Chairman, R. T. A. Hooghly being Annexure 'I', to the writ petition, that the R.T. A. considered certain aspects in the area in question, namely, narrow roads, the strength of buses plied by the private owners had not been increasing to cope with the commuter load, the temporary permit-run bus owners were not committed to local routes, the bus owners were diverting buses to contract carriage beyond the permitted strength and the passengers resentment had gone down after introduction of Hindusthan Motor Trekkers as stage carriage. The State Transport Authority has made the decision, as revealed in Annexure 'N', after due deleberation on these factors. 20. We find that the State Transport Authority while making such decision to treat the Trekker as stage carriage in certain routes, has considered the matter in accordance with law. We hold that the State Transport Authority in certain circumstances is well within its competence to reduce the minimum seating accommodation of a stage carriage under the second proviso to Rule 163 and the State Transport Authority in the instant case has duly exercised such power. We also hold that the learned Trial Judge rightly refused to make any interim order. We also hold that the grounds taken in the writ petition challenging the said notifications on the decision of the State Transport Authority, are not valid grounds and the writ application should also fail. 21. As agreed by the parties, the writ application has also been heard by us. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ application also fails and is dismissed. 22. The appeal is also dismissed There will be no order as to costs. 21. As agreed by the parties, the writ application has also been heard by us. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ application also fails and is dismissed. 22. The appeal is also dismissed There will be no order as to costs. Let plain copy of the operative part of this judgment and order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar Court), be given to the learned Advocates for the parties, upon observing all necessary formalities. Nand, J. : I agree.