Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 534 (CAL)

Bimal Kumar Das v. State of West Bengal

2016-07-05

BISWANATH SOMADDER

body2016
ORDER : Affidavit of service filed in Court today be taken on record. 2. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant application, it appears that the only issue which falls for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the instant case is whether the rejection of the timetable proposed by the petitioner for plying of his vehicle bearing No. WB-31-7581 on the route 'Solepatta to Garia' is in accordance with the provisions of section 2 sub-section (38) and section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with Rules 118 and 133 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, or not. 3. It appears from the facts of the instant case that the petitioner was granted permit to ply his vehicle on the following route: "Route – Solepatta to Garia Station via Egra, Contai, Henria, Nandakumar, NH 41, Mechada, NH 6, Santragachi, Howrah CDBT, Vidyasagar Setu, Rabindra Sadan, Tollygunj, N.S.C. Bose Road." 4. Such permit was issued on 4th February, 2016 and is valid till 3rd February, 2021. A provisionally approved timetable was also issued, which was accepted by the petitioner by signing on the same without any demur or protest. Subsequently, by a letter dated 22nd March, 2016, the petitioner made a prayer before the Secretary, State Transport Authority, to revise the said timetable so that he could ply the vehicle ".... from Garia instead of Solepatta economically by taking care of day to day management of the said vehicle ....". The reason for making such an application has been stated in details in the petitioner's letter dated 22nd March, 2016. 5. The main reasons provided by the Secretary, State Transport Authority, West Bengal, in his/her letter dated 3rd June, 2016, while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for revising the timetable are as follows: "i) He applied for permit, in the prescribed format, for the route 'Solepatta to Garia'. His application was approved by the STA. The permit along with the time table was issued in accordance with the approved alignment. (ii) The route 'Solepatta to Garia' indicates that 'Solepatta' is the originating point in uptrip and 'Garia' being the terminating point. The notion of uptrip and down trip is irreversibly interlinked with the particular description of route alignment. (iii) His proposed time table in uptrip is from 'Garia Station to Solepatta' i.e. just reverse to the approved trip alignment. (ii) The route 'Solepatta to Garia' indicates that 'Solepatta' is the originating point in uptrip and 'Garia' being the terminating point. The notion of uptrip and down trip is irreversibly interlinked with the particular description of route alignment. (iii) His proposed time table in uptrip is from 'Garia Station to Solepatta' i.e. just reverse to the approved trip alignment. Hence, based on the reasoning at para (ii) above, his prayer is regretted." 6. The clear statutory provisions relating to the definition of a "route" and the conditions and limitations imposed upon those who ply stage carriage in an approved "route", are discussed herein below. Section 2 sub-section (38) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follows: "(38) "route" means a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another;" 7. A plain reading of the statutory definition of the term "route" means a line of travel traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another. In other words, a motor vehicle may traverse between terminus X and terminus Y. Thus, the line of travel between X and Y would define a "route". 8. Section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for grant of stage carriage permit. Sub-section (2) of section 72 provides for attachment of any one or more of the conditions stipulated thereunder by the Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit of a specified description, subject to any rules made under the Motor Vehicles Act. The conditions stipulated in the sub-clauses under sub-section (2) of section 72 include the following: "(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; (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;" 9. Rule 118 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 provides for the statutory limitation of time of plying of stage carriage. Rule 118 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 provides for the statutory limitation of time of plying of stage carriage. It clearly provides for attachment of a condition to a stage carriage permit at any time during the validity of such permit that the stage carriage shall ply on a portion of the route for which the permit has been granted in accordance with the timetable approved by the Transport Authority. 10. Rule 133 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 provides for additional conditions in respect of certain permits. It provides, inter alia, for imposition of a condition – while a permit in respect of a stage carriage is granted – that the service shall be regularly operated on the specified route in accordance with the approved timetable except for such reasons as stated in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) under clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 133. 11. The submission made by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the route for which the petitioner has been granted such permit, i.e., from "Solepatta to Garia" is not in accordance with the statutory definition of the expression, "route" and such "route" should also mean "Garia to Solepatta", does not hold much water in view of the definition of the expression "route", as elaborated hereinbefore. It may be further observed that if a person has been granted such permit to ply on a line of travel between terminus X and terminus Y, the origin of the line of travel will be terminus X and the destination will be terminus Y in terms of the statutory definition of the expression "route". It cannot mean vice versa since such expression of a similar nature does not appear after the last word, "another", under sub-section (38) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 12. The petitioner, in the facts of the instant case, has tried to make out a case for plying of his vehicle more commercially viable than what was proposed by the authorities in the provisional timetable attached to the stage carriage permit, which the petitioner had accepted without any demur or protest by signing on the same. 12. The petitioner, in the facts of the instant case, has tried to make out a case for plying of his vehicle more commercially viable than what was proposed by the authorities in the provisional timetable attached to the stage carriage permit, which the petitioner had accepted without any demur or protest by signing on the same. It is also noticed that the petitioner applied for a stage carriage permit to operate on the route "Solepatta to Garia Station via Egra, Contai, Henria, Nandakumar, NH 41, Mecheda, NH 6, Santragachi, Howrah CDBT, Vidyasagar Setu, Rabindra Sadan, Tollygunj, N.S.C. Bose Road" with his eyes and ears open. He was conscious of the fact that he was not applying for the route in reverse, i.e., Garia to Solepatta. Had he done so, his prayer for issuance of a revised timetable – in the manner as requested – ought to have been considered by the Secretary, State Transport Authority. However, there was no scope for the Secretary, State Transport Authority, to consider the petitioner's prayer for issuance of a revised timetable in terms of his letter dated 22nd March, 2016, since the route consciously chosen by the petitioner was from 'Solepatta to Garia' and not vice versa. 13. In such circumstances, as stated above, this Court cannot grant such reliefs to the petitioner, as prayed for. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 14. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties. Petition dismissed.