( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocate appearing for the parties. The very nature of the stay application is such that in adjudicating the same, the entire appeal could be decided. ( 2 ) IN that view, we are treating the appeal as on day's list. Appeal and the application both are taken up for hearing. ( 3 ) ALL formalities are dispensed with. ( 4 ) ALL parties are appearing before us. ( 5 ) THE judgment dated 27th October, 2006 passed by the learned Trial Judge in W. P. No. 1498 of 2006 is the subject-matter of the appeal whereby and whereunder the learned Trial Judge directed consideration of the application praying for route permit in the route Salap to Science City but with rider that such application shall not be rejected by referring the Division Bench judgment passed in the case of Sujata Ganguly and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. , registered as F. M. A. No. 604 of 2004 and/or 011 the ground of notification dated 6th August, 2004, whereby and whereunder a total embargo was imposed so far as allowing any route permit to ply the vehicle through the Central Business zone of Calcutta city as well as the Howrah Station. ( 6 ) THE notification dated 6th August, 2004 stood confirmed by the decision of the Division Bench passed in the Sujata Ganguly's case by holding in paragraph 5. 1 that no route permit should be granted touching the Central Business Zone of Calcutta city namely Esplanade as well as the approach areas of Howrah station of Howrah city. ( 7 ) IT is an admitted position as it appear from the records that the respondent/ writ petitioner filed an application on praying for route permit in the route salap to Science City via Howrah Station, Brabourne Road, Esplanade which means that practically the same is not only touching Central Business Zone of calcutta city but also the approach road of Howrah Station which is within the embargo zone in terms of the judgment of Sujata Ganguly (supra) and the notification thereof as referred to. ( 8 ) SINCE the learned Trial Judge by the impugned judgment passed an order to consider the matter with a rider that such consideration should not be based on judgment of Sujata Ganguly (supra) and the notification aforesaid, we are of the view that the judgment suffers from basic illegality as the learned Trial judge practically modified the judgment delivered by the - Division Bench passed in the case of Sujata Ganguly (supra), which is not permissible under the law. ( 9 ) IN that view of the matter, the impugned judgment under appeal is not maintainable in the law and hence it stands quashed and set aside. ( 10 ) THE appeal and application both are accordingly allowed. Appeal and application allowed.