JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners have challenged the resolution of Board Meeting dated November 26, 2015 of Regional Transport Authority, Burdwan (Annexure P/2 to the writ application) by filing this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Mr. Sanat Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that on October 16, 2015 the petitioners filed an application for extension of the existing route of the stage carriage permit granted in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that by resolution dated November 26, 2015 the respondent no.2 rejected the prayer of the petitioners for extension of the route on the ground that the portion of the proposed route from Benachity to Durgapur is highly congested and the portion of the route from Benachity to Viringi More is not fit for plying vehicle. According to Mr. Roy, the respondent no.2 cannot reject the prayer of the petitioners for extension of the route on the ground that the portion of the route is congested without having any notification issued by the State Government under Section 71(3)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He also submits that the length of the extension of the proposed route is only 12 kilometers, whereas the respondent no.2 can extend the route upto 24 kilometers as per provision of second proviso (ii) of Sub- Section (3) of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. According to Mr. Roy, the resolution under challenge in this writ application is liable to be quashed. 3. Mr. Amal Kumar Sen, learned counsel representing the State respondents contends that the number of vehicles can be limited by issuing notification under Section 71 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 only if the population of the city through which the route is granted exceeds five lakhs. He further submits that the reasons have been disclosed by the respondent no.2 for refusal to extend the route of the petitioners. 4. On consideration of the resolution dated November 26, 2015 (Annexure P/2 to the writ application), I find that the application for extension of the route of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that a portion of the proposed route from Benachity to Durgapur is highly congested and a portion of the route from Benachity to Viringi More is not motorable. It is also observed by the respondent no.2 in the said resolution dated November 26, 2015 that it is difficult for the respondent no.2 to adjust the time table for huge number of vehicles plying in the particular route if the prayer for extension of the route of the petitioners is granted. Since the number of vehicles plying in the particular route is not disclosed and since the condition of the route alleged to be highly congested is not described in detail, I am of the view that the resolution adopted by the respondent no.2 for refusal to extend the route of the petitioners is not justified under the law. The respondent no.2, being a quasi judicial authority, should have assigned reasons by giving particulars of facts for refusal of right of the petitioners to get extension of the route for which permit is already granted to the petitioners. 5. In view of my above findings, the resolution dated November 26, 2015 of the Board Meeting of the respondent no.2 (Annexure P/2 to the writ application) is hereby quashed. 6. The respondent no.2 is directed to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioners on October 16, 2015 (Annexure P/2 to the writ application) in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the order and to intimate the petitioners about the fate of the application within a period of two weeks thereafter. 7. With the above direction, the writ application is disposed of. 8. There will be no order as to costs.