Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 573 (GAU)

Kamakhya Mototec Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam

2017-05-12

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. Heard Mr. UK Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Y. Doloi, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State of Assam appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks for setting aside the letter dated 5.12.2016 issued by the Regional Transport Authority (in short RTA), rejecting the representation as well as the claim of the petitioner for inclusion of the vehicle Tata Sumo Gold in the scheme called Metro Share Taxi scheme (MST). In the writ petition the petitioner also seeks for setting aside the decision of the RTA Kamrup adopted against agenda No. 3 of the meeting dated 06.01.2016 and also clause VI of the notification dated 18.01.2016 of the District Transport Officer cum Secretary RTA Kamrup Metro, by which only the type of vehicle, namely, Tata Magic and Mahindra Maximo Mini having hinged doors were allowed to be included in the new MST scheme. The writ petition had also been filed for a direction that the respondent authorities be directed to include Tata Sumo Gold as an alternative vehicle along with the aforesaid Tata Magic and Mahindra Maximo Mini in the scheme of MST. 3. The writ petitioner is an authorised car dealer of the Tata Motors Ltd. and deals with the sales of four wheeler passenger cars manufactured by the said Tata Motors. It is stated that the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent RTA in excluding the vehicle Tata Sumo Gold and including separate type of vehicles, namely, Tata Magic and Mahindra Maximo Mini, without there being a judicious and sensible inter se assessment of the competing brands of vehicle and without there being any justified intelligible differentia between the selected vehicle and excluded vehicle in the scheme of MST. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that vide a notification dated 04.3.2013 of the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Transport Department, a restriction in the plying of the vehicles was brought in respect of the earlier scheme called Ten Seated Share Taxi (TSST) amongst others. Although the said notification of 04.03.2014, was assailed in WP(C) No. 206/2014, WP(C) No. 495/2014 and WP(C) No. 1678/2014, by the Judgment and Order of 26.11.2015, the notification of 04.03.2014 was upheld. 5. Although the said notification of 04.03.2014, was assailed in WP(C) No. 206/2014, WP(C) No. 495/2014 and WP(C) No. 1678/2014, by the Judgment and Order of 26.11.2015, the notification of 04.03.2014 was upheld. 5. Accordingly, a meeting of the RTA Kamrup Metro was held on 06.01.2016 and the agenda item No. 3 of the meeting was for a discussion for introduction of an alternative category of vehicle in place of Mahindra DI 150, HM Trekker and Tata Spacio Soft Top vehicles while replacing the vehicles against TSST permits. In the discussion, the introduction of an alternative category of vehicle for replacement of the TSST permits in place of a Mahindra DI 150, HM Trekker and Tata Spacio Soft Top was discussed on the premises that the said category of vehicles are no longer available in the market. But in the meeting, the earlier TSST scheme was modified and the new MST scheme was introduced, so that, other type of vehicles having a seating capacity of less than ten may be specified for replacing the existing permits in respect of the vehicles which were more than 10 years old. Accordingly, as per the MST scheme, the type of vehicle that was accepted was the hard top Tata Magic and Mahindra Maximo Mini vehicle having hinged doors and manufactured by M/s Tata Motors Ltd. and M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd, respectively. 6. The said decision of the RTA Kamrup Metro was notified by the District Transport Officer cum Secretary of the RTA Kamrup Metro by the notification No. RTA-K/TT/Routes Stops/77/130 dated 18.01.2016. In the said notification it has also been stated that in view of the restriction imposed on the plying of vehicles which was more than 10 years old, in the TSST scheme, and due to the unavailability of the TSST vehicles like Mahindra DI 150, HM Trekker and Tata Spacio Soft Top and the inconveniences that may be faced by the permit holders of such vehicles in replacing their more than 10 year old vehicles within the stipulated time period, the RTA Kamrup Metro in its meeting held on 06.01.2016, had decided to modify the existing TSST scheme by replacing the same with the MST scheme, so that, existing operators may replace their vehicles by less than ten seater type of vehicles. Accordingly, the notification also reiterated that the specification of the type of vehicle that was accepted was a Tata Magic and Mahindra Maximo Mini. 7. The said decision of the RTA Kamrup (Metro) dated 06.01.2016, and the notification dated 18.01.2016 was assailed in an earlier writ petition WP(C) 6717/2016. In the said writ petition, it was a submission on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is a dealer of a type of vehicle called Tata Sumo Gold, which is a 9 seater vehicle and therefore, if it is the stand of the Transport Department that a lighter motor vehicle having a seating capacity of less than 10 is preferred, there is no discernible reason as to why the Tata Sumo Gold vehicle had been left out. In the said writ petition, the stand of the Transport Department was that though the decision was taken way back on 06.01.2016, but the petitioner had not represented before the RTA as regards the vehicle Tata Sumo Gold and accordingly, it was submitted that if such representations are made before the RTA, the same may be given its due consideration. Accordingly, by the order dated 23.11.2016, the petitioner was required to file a representation before the RTA Kamrup Metro and on being filed, the RTA Kamrup ( Metro) was required to consider the same with a reasoned order within 4 days therefrom. It was also provided that the reasoned order to be passed was required to be communicated to the petitioner, who shall, if aggrieved, be at a liberty to approach the Court again. 8. In the order dated 23.11.2016 of this Court in WP(C) No. 6716/2016, the prayer of the petitioner that certain percentage of the required vehicles be kept aside till the adjudication in the representation, was rejected. 9. Accordingly, as directed by this Court in its order dated 23.11.2016, the representation of the petitioner which was filed on 28.11.2016, was given its due consideration and by the letter dated 05.12.2016, of the District Transport Officer cum Secretary RTA Kamrup Metro, addressed to the petitioner it was informed that upon overall consideration of the matter, an opinion was formed that the Tata Sumo Gold does not satisfy the required parameters for introduction of the MST scheme. 10. 10. It is noticed that in the said letter of 05.12.2016, certain reasons had been stated as to why the type of vehicles Tata Magic and Mahindra Maximo Mini were recommended instead of the type of vehicles Tata Sumo, Tata Avenger and Mahindra Supu LX. Some of the stated reasons were that the Tata Magic and Mahindra Maximo Mini were preferred over Tata Sumo as the length and width of the vehicles are much lesser and needs lesser space for parking and more suitable from the point of view of traffic congestion. Another reason was that the doors of Tata Sumo Gold opens on both sides, whereas, Tata magic and Mahindra Maximo Mini can be opened only on the left side, which makes it convenient in the situation of traffic rush. Further the absence of foot board in Tata Magic and Mahindra Maximo Mini reduces the scope of passengers hanging out, which is a major cause of road accident and the highest speed of Tata Sumo Gold is 120 kmph, whereas, in respect of Tata Magic and Mahindra Maximo Mini it is 70 kmph and in a crowded city like Guwahati, the higher speed and momentum of a vehicle is a possible cause of accident. It was also a reason for consideration that the windows of Tata Magic and Mahindra Maximo Mini are transparent and visible from outside, thereby, reducing the possibility of criminal activities inside the vehicle and also it is likely to cause less traffic congestion and can move through the small lanes and bye-lanes. 11. The aforesaid letter of 15.12.2016, is being assailed in this writ petition. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner, without much referring to the earlier writ petition WP(C) No. 6716/2016, assails that the decision dated 06.01.2016 of the RTA Kamrup (Metro), the notification dated 18.01.2016 of the DTO Cum Secretary RTA Kamrup (Metro) and also the subsequent letter of the DTO Cum Secretary RTA Kamrup(Metro), dated 15.12.2016 mainly upon two grounds. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner, without much referring to the earlier writ petition WP(C) No. 6716/2016, assails that the decision dated 06.01.2016 of the RTA Kamrup (Metro), the notification dated 18.01.2016 of the DTO Cum Secretary RTA Kamrup (Metro) and also the subsequent letter of the DTO Cum Secretary RTA Kamrup(Metro), dated 15.12.2016 mainly upon two grounds. The first ground is that the decision of the RTA Kamrup (Metro) in disallowing the inclusion of the vehicle Tata Sumo Gold in the MST scheme violates the provisions of Section 71(3)(a) of the Motors Vehicles Act, 1988, inasmuch as in the instant case there is no such direction of the Central Govt., directing the STA or the RTA to limit the number of stage carriages, generally or of any specified type, as may be fixed and specified in the notification and operating on city routes in town with a population of not less than 5 lakhs. The second ground is that, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision rendered in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 , and also reiterated in State of Punjab v. Bandeep Singh and Ors reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 , the respondent authorities are required to justify the decision dated 06.01.2016 on the basis of the reasons stated therein and the same cannot be supplemented by any fresh reason and therefore, the reason stated in the decision dated 06.01.2016 for preferring Tata Magic and Mahindra Maximo Mini being that the Mahindra DI 150, HM Trekker and Tata Spacio Soft Top are not available in the market, the respondent authorities cannot add any further reason to the same as sought to be done in the letter dated 15.12.2016 and the justification for the rejection of the vehicle Tata Sumo Gold has to be confined to the stated reason of the non availability of the same. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Y Doloi, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State reiterates that the MST being a new scheme, the selection of the type of vehicle was evaluated on the basis of the present traffic situation in the city of Guwahati and also the suitability and requirement of the purpose for which the MST scheme was introduced. On the other hand, Mr. Y Doloi, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State reiterates that the MST being a new scheme, the selection of the type of vehicle was evaluated on the basis of the present traffic situation in the city of Guwahati and also the suitability and requirement of the purpose for which the MST scheme was introduced. It was pointed out that the MST scheme is in fact a new scheme based upon the requirement of providing appropriate and adequate transport facility in the city of Guwahati in its present context and it is not merely, a matter of replacement of the ten year old vehicle in the earlier TSST. 14. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance, as projected by the rival parties, the issues before this Court for adjudication is whether the provisions of Section 71 (3)(a) of the MV Act 1988 prohibits the RTA from arriving at a decision as regards the suitability of a particular type of vehicle for a given scheme to be operated within the city of Guwahati, unless there is a direction by the Central Government for limiting the number of stage carriages generally or of any specified type. The further issues for adjudication is whether the decision contained in the letter dated 15.12.2016, is an independent decision occasioned to be taken to address the issues raised by the petitioner in the representation dated 18.11.2016, which was pursuant to the direction of this Court in its order dated 23.11.2016, or the said decision would have to be confined to the reasoning stated in the decision dated 06.01.2016 that the ten seater vehicles Mahindra DI 150, HM Trekker and Tata Spacio Soft Top were not available. In other words, it is also required to be adjudicated as to whether the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill's case (supra) that the basis of the reason cannot subsequently be supplemented by any fresh reason in the shape of any affidavit or otherwise, would be applicable in the facts and circumstance of the present case. 15. 15. As regards the ground that the decision of the RTA Kamrup (Metro) in disallowing the inclusion of the vehicle Tata Sumo Gold in the MST scheme violates the provisions of Section 71(3)(a) of the M.V. Act, 1988, it is noticed that Section 71 of the MV Act of 1988 pertains to the procedure of the Regional Transport Authority in considering an application for stage carriage permit. The RTA being a statutory authority, constituted under Section 68 of the MV Act, 1988 performs several functions, amongst which, issuance of stage carriage permit is also one such function. Under Section 68 of the MV Act, 1988, the RTA is required to exercise and discharge any such function as may be specified in the notification constituting such RTA and also the powers and function confirmed by or under Chapter-V of the MV Act, 1988. Under Section 67 of the MV Act, 1988, the State Govt. having regard to the advantages offered to the public, trade and industry by the development of motor transport and also having regard to the desirability of preventing the deterioration of the road system, may issue directions from time to time to the RTA. Further Section 68(3) of the MV Act, 1988 also provides for the State Transport Authority (STA) and the RTA to give effect to any such direction of the State Govt. and also exercise and discharge throughout the State the powers and function, amongst others, to formulate routes for plying of stage carriages. 16. From the aforesaid provisions of Section 67 and 68 of the MV Act, 1988, it is discernible that, apart from issuing permits the RTA also discharges certain functions as regards the introduction of schemes or routes to have an effective management of the transport system in a given area. Further, from the constitution of the RTA, as provided under Section 68(2) of the MV Act, 1988, the RTA is not merely an administrative authority, and on the other hand, it is a statutory quasi judicial authority, whose functions also include to formulate policies and decisions as to what kind of transport system is desirable in a given place, by giving due consideration to the requirement of the public as well as the road and traffic condition under which such policy may have to be operated. In other words, the function of the RTA would also be in the nature of engaging in a technical evaluation of the transport system that is required to be operated. 17. In the aforesaid background of the nature of the functions of the RTA, the applicability of Section 71(3)(a) of the MV Act, 1988 in the facts and circumstance of the present case has to be examined. As already noticed, Section 71 pertains to the procedure that the RTA would be required to follow while considering the application for a stage carriage permit. Therefore, the requirements of Section 71(3)(a) would also have to be construed to be a procedure pertaining to the consideration of an application for a stage carriage permit. 18. Section 71(3)(a) of the MV Act, 1988 inter alia provides that the State Govt. shall if so directed by the Central Govt. having regard to the number of vehicles, road conditions and other relevant matters, by notification in the official gazette, direct the STA or the RTA to limit the number of stage carriages generally or of any specified type, as may be fixed and specified in the notification with regard to its operation on any city routes in town with a population of not less than 5 lakhs. The said provision of Section 71(3)(a) of the MV Act, 1988, by virtue of the use of the expression 'shall', makes it mandatory that if the Central Govt. so directs, the STA or the RTA is bound to limit the number of stage carriages generally or of any specified type from operation in any city route. The said provision by itself does not indicate that in the absence of any such direction by the Central Govt., the STA or the RTA would be bereft of any of its power to restrict number of stage carriages, generally or of any specified type, depending upon the number of vehicles, road conditions and other relevant matters. Any such interpretation, that by virtue of Section 71(3)(a) of the MV Act, 1988, the STA or the RTA would be bereft of its powers to restrict the number of stage carriages, generally or of any specified type, would also be in conflict with the provision of Sections 67 and 68 of the MV Act, 1988 and such an interpretation would curtail upon the powers and authority of the STA and RTA which they otherwise have. 19. Even otherwise, if two interpretations are possible, in respect of a particular provision of a statute, the interpretation that would be consistent with the other provisions of the Act, would have to be accepted and any other interpretation which renders redundant the other provisions of the Act, would have to be discarded. In this respect, reference may be made to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.T. Veluswami Thevar v. G. Raja Nainar and Ors, reported in 1959 Sup (1) SCR 623 AIR 1959 SC 422 17 181 wherein, in paragraph-12 it had been held that:- "It is no doubt true that if on its true construction, a statute leads to anomalous results, the Court have no option but to give effect to it and leave it to the legislature to amend and alter the law. But when on a construction of a statute, two views are possible, one which results in an anomaly and the other, not, it is our duty to adopt the latter and not the former, seeking consolation in the thought that the law bristles with anomalies". Accordingly, it is understood that if two views are possible, where one results in an anomaly and the other does not, it is the duty of the Court to adopt the latter. Further the said proposition of law had again been reiterated in Banarsi Debi v. Income Tax Officer reported in (1964) 7 SCR 539 : AIR (1964) SC 1742 : (1964) 53 ITR 100 . In paragraph-9 it had been held that if the narrower meaning would introduce anomalies in the section, all such anomalies would disappear if the expression was given a wider meaning. Again in Lalji Haridas v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1964) 6 SCR : AIR (1964) SC 1154 : (1964) 52 ITR 423 : (1964) 2 Cri LJ 249, in paragraph 16 it had been held as follows:- "The anomaly which would result if the construction suggested by the Additional Solicitor-General is accepted, is, in our opinion, so glaring that the alternative contention urged by Mr. Desai and upheld by the Bombay High Court which avoids the said anomaly appears to be more reasonable and more consistent with the true intention of the legislature." 20. Desai and upheld by the Bombay High Court which avoids the said anomaly appears to be more reasonable and more consistent with the true intention of the legislature." 20. In the present case, if a view is taken that by virtue of Section 71(3)(a) of the MV Act, 1988, issuance of stage carriage permit in respect of a particular vehicle can be restricted, only upon a direction by the Central Govt., the same would lead to an anomalous situation and be in conflict with the other provisions of the MV Act 1988 and also infringe upon the power and authority of the RTA to otherwise restrict such permits. In such view of the matter, by following the aforesaid law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is deemed that in the facts and circumstance, it is the duty of the Court to accept the other interpretation that Section 71(3)(a) merely provides that if there is any such direction by the Central Govt., it is mandatory on the part of the RTA to restrict the issuance of such permits, but the same by itself does not imply that the power of the RTA to otherwise limit the issuance of the permit is subject to the condition precedent of there being a direction from the Central Govt. 21. The law regarding the interpretation of a provision of a statute is that the statute must be read as a whole and one provision of the Act should be construed with reference to the other provision in the same Act, so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Krushna Bose v. Binod Kanungo and Ors. reported in AIR (1954) SC 202 in paragaraph-11 that if both Sections of an Act are clear and there is a head on clash, it is the duty of the Courts to avoid that and whenever it is possible to do so, to construe the provisions in such a manner so that they harmonise. reported in AIR (1954) SC 202 in paragaraph-11 that if both Sections of an Act are clear and there is a head on clash, it is the duty of the Courts to avoid that and whenever it is possible to do so, to construe the provisions in such a manner so that they harmonise. Again in K.N. Wanchoo v. V. Ramaswami reported in AIR 1967 SC 1211 , in paragaraph-4, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is a well settled rule of construction that the provisions of a statute should be so read as to harmonise with one another and the provisions of one section cannot be used to defeat those of another unless it is impossible to effect reconciliation between them. 22. In view of the above propositions of law, even if Section 71(3)(a) of MV Act, 1988 can be interpreted in two different manners, that is, the RTA can restrict the number of stage carriage permits of a particular type of vehicle only upon a direction by the Central Government or that the use of the expression 'shall' makes it mandatory that if the Central Government so directs, the RTA is bound to limit the number of stage carriages generally or of any specified type from operation in any city route, but the same by itself, does not indicate that in the absence of any such direction by the Central Government, the RTA would be bereft of any of its powers to restrict the number of stage carriages, the interpretation which would be consistent with the other provisions of the MV Act. 1988 would have to be adopted. 23. Accordingly, the interpretation of Section 73(1)(a) of the MV Act, 1988 that it is mandatory on the part of the RTA to restrict the number of stage carriage permits upon a direction by the Central Government through a notification, but at the same time, the RTA is not bereft of it powers, to otherwise restrict the number of stage carriage permits depending upon the number of vehicles, road conditions and other relevant factors, would be the appropriate interpretation. 24. In such view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that disallowing the inclusion of the vehicle Tata Sumo Gold in the MST scheme violates the provision of Section 71(3)(a) of the MV Act, 1988 cannot be accepted. 25. 24. In such view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that disallowing the inclusion of the vehicle Tata Sumo Gold in the MST scheme violates the provision of Section 71(3)(a) of the MV Act, 1988 cannot be accepted. 25. As regards the other contention of the writ petitioner that by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 , and State of Punjab v. Bandeep Singh and Ors reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 , the respondent authorities are required to justify the decision dated 06.01.2016 on the basis of the reasons stated therein and it cannot be supplemented by any fresh reason, the sequence of events that have taken place which are as follows, would be a relevant factor. 26. The petitioner is a dealer of the Tata Motors and deals with the sales of four wheeler passenger cars manufactured by the said Tata Motors Limited, which also includes the type of vehicle named Tata Sumo Gold. After the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.2015 of this Court in WP(C) No. 206/2014 and the other writ petitions, by which the notification dated 04.03.2014 was upheld, a meeting of the RTA, Kamrup (Metro) was held on 06.01.2016. In the said meeting, a discussion was held for an alternative category of vehicles in place of Mahindra DI 150, HM Trekker and Tata Spacio Soft Top for replacing the vehicle against the TSST permits. While arriving at the said discussion, the RTA, Kamrup (Metro) was of the view that the said category of vehicles are no longer available and as the earlier TSST scheme was modified and the MST scheme was introduced, therefore, it was decided that the hard top Tata Magic and Mahindra Maximo Mini vehicles having hinged doors was found to be acceptable. 27. Against the said decision of 06.01.2016, the present petitioner had preferred a writ petition being WP(C) No. 6717/2016 purportedly on the ground that the type of vehicle Tata Sumo Gold does have the same features and advantages as that of Mahindra DI 150, HM Trekker and Tata Spacio Soft Top and as such, the conclusion of the RTA, Kamrup (Metro) that such type of vehicles are unavailable was incorrect. It was also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had made a representation that their type of vehicle namely Tata Sumo Gold be also considered. The said writ petition was disposed of by the order dated 23.11.2016 directing the petitioner to file a representation before the RTA, Kamrup (Metro), which upon being filed, would be given its due consideration. 28. Accordingly, the petitioner had filed a representation dated 28.11.2016, inter-alia, requesting that the authorities to also consider the acceptability of the vehicle Tata Sumo Gold for the MST scheme. By the impugned letter dated 15.12.2016, the petitioner was informed about the outcome of the consideration given by the respondent RTA, Kamrup (Metro), and also the reasons as to why the said vehicle was not found acceptable for the MST scheme was stated. 29. In Mohinder Singh Gill (Supra) and Bandeep Singh and others (Supra), the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reason so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by any fresh reason in the shape of an affidavit or otherwise. In the meeting of the RTA, Kamrup (Metro) held on 06.01.2016, the authorities had not considered the vehicle Tata Sumo Gold on the presumption that the vehicles of such type are not available. But when the said decision was put to challenge in WP(C) No. 6717/2016, it was provided that in order to mitigate the grievance of not considering the said vehicle Tata Sumo Gold, the petitioner would submit an appropriate representation and the RTA, Kamrup (Metro) would give a due consideration to the said representation, meaning thereby that the suitability of the said vehicle for the MST scheme would be considered on its own merit, other than the reason of it being unavailable in the market. Therefore, in view of such provisions of this Court in its order dated 23.11.2016, the reasons given in the meeting dated 06.01.2016, for not considering the vehicle Tata Sumo Gold gets itself merged in the Judgment and Order of this Court and the respondent RTA, Kamrup (Metro) was required to give its further reasons, either accepting or rejecting the Tata Sumo Gold in the MST scheme. 30. 30. In view of such provision, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill (Supra) and Bandeep Singh and others (Supra) that the respondent authorities cannot give any further reason for not accepting the vehicle Tata Sumo Gold, other than the reason stated in the decision of the meeting dated 06.01.2016, is therefore, not tenable. 31. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill (Supra) and Bandeep Singh and others (Supra) is that once a statutory authority takes a decision and states its reason for the same, the authorities cannot subsequently add new reasons to justify the decision by filing affidavits or otherwise. The said principle of law is inapplicable in a situation where a fresh consideration is given upon a new circumstance by giving reasons thereof, in a matter where the said considerations were not given in the earlier decision. 32. As already held, in the instant case, the reasons stated in the said letter dated 15.12.2016 being the reasons given by the RTA, Kamrup (Metro) while considering the representation of the petitioner on the premises that the concerned type of vehicles are actually available, cannot be held to be an improvement of the earlier reasons given in the meeting of the RTA, Kamrup (Metro) held on 06.01.2016. In such view of the matter, the contention raised by the petitioner on the basis of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill (Supra) and Bandeep Singh and others (Supra) that the respondent RTA, Kamrup (Metro) cannot further improve upon the reasons given in its meeting held on 06.01.2016 for not approving the vehicle Tata Sumo Gold, cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In fact, in the meeting dated 06.01.2016, the type of vehicle Tata Sumo Gold was not considered on a purported presumption that it is not available in the market, whereas in the letter dated 15.12.2016, the same was considered by presuming it to be available in the market, but rejecting the same on the basis of its unsuitability for the purpose of the MST scheme. 33. 33. In such view of the matter, the other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reasons for rejecting the vehicle Tata Sumo Gold is an improvement of the earlier reason stated in the meeting dated 06.01.2016 is, therefore, rejected. 34. In view of the above on both the counts i.e. the RTA, Kamrup (Metro) could not have restricted the Stage Carriage Permit in respect of the vehicle Tata Sumo Gold under the provisions of Section 71(3)(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and also that the reasons given in the meeting of the RTA, Kamrup (Metro) dated 06.01.2016 could not have been further improved by way of affidavit or otherwise, are both found to be unacceptable. 35. In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.