Ajay Kumar Gupta & Ors. vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

It is not in dispute that the Regional Transport Authority took resolution formulating new route, i.e. KB 22, between Patharghata to Sales Tax

(Khalpool) and subsequently revised and re-aligned in various resolutions taken in Board meeting. According to the petitioner, the Regional Transport

Authority has no power to create a new route as such power is vested upon the State Government. The private respondent is the existing operator in

the said route and resisted the claim of the petitioner on the ground that there is no fetter on the Regional Transport Authority to formulate the route to

ply the stage carriages and therefore, contention of the petitioner that formulation a new route can only be done by the State is not in consonance or

tune with the provisions contained under sub-section 3 of section 68 of the said Act.

The contention of the private respondent is basically founded upon clause (ca) subsequently inserted by way of an amendment Act, 1994 on 14th

November, 1994. On the meaningful reading of Sections 67 and 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the State Government has the power to control

the road transport having regard to the matters enumerated under Section 67 thereof. So far as the powers of the Regional Transport Authority and

the State Transport Authority are concerned, sub-section 3 of Section 68 of the said Act has to be interpreted in such a manner that it would not

render the other provision of the said Act unworkable.

 The language employed in sub-section 3 of Section 68 of the said Act makes imperative on the Regional Transport Authorities and the State

Transport of Authority to give effect to any directions issued by the State Government under Section 67 thereof and additional powers de hors the

aforesaid directions can only be exercised provided it comes within the ambit of clause (a) to clause (d) thereof. Though clause (ca) of said sub-

section envisage the formulation of the route for plying stage carriage yet the same is not unbrindled but circumscribed by any order or direction issued

by the Government in this regard.

It is manifest from the Circular issued by the Transport Department, Government of West Bengal that the formulation of new route by the various

Regional Transport Authorities is in violation of the powers reserved under the various clauses of sub-section 3 of Section 68 as the same is within

exclusive domain of the State Government. The aforesaid decision was taken when some of the unsuccessful operators challenged the resolution of

the Regional Transport Authority formulating a new route and a direction was passed by this Court upon the Transport Department to take a decision

thereupon.

The said decision was taken, in compliance of the orders/directions passed by this Court, by the Principal Secretary, Transport Department on 6th

May, 2016 rescinding the guidelines issued on July 10, 2014 resulting in nullifying and quashing all the resolutions taken by the Regional Transport

Authority formulating a new route. Though the said decision was restricted to a specific resolution taken by one of such Regional Transport

Authorities yet it conveys a definite decision of the Transport Department that formulation of new route by them is contrary to the powers reserved

under Section 68.

An identical point was raised in another writ petition moved before this Court in case of Bibhas Mondal vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (W.P.

7180 (W) of 2018) decided on 13th June, 2018, when the earlier order of the Principal Secretary of the Transport Department was placed and upon

noticing that the earlier guidelines were subsequently revoked and/or rescinded by the said authority, the direction was passed upon the Principal

Secretary to take a decision in the light of the earlier one.

There is no hesitation in my mind that mere insertion of clause (ca) in sub-section 3 of Section 68 of the Act, the powers conferred upon the Regional

Transport Authority and State Transport Authority have not been elevated and/or placed at higher pedestal that of the State Government. The said

clause is to be read conjointly with the enabling provisions contained in sub-section 3 which leaves no ambiguity that Regional Transport Authority and

the State Transport Authority have executory power to implement any directions issued under section 67 by the State Government and therefore,

cannot usurp the power of the State Government taking aid of clause (ca) thereof. Such power is still controlled and circumscribed by the provision of

the Section 67 of the said Act and, therefore, the interpretation adopted by the Regional Transport Authority in this regard if accepted shall bring an

anomalous situation.

This Court, therefore, directs the respondent no. 2, the Principal Secretary of the Transport Department to take a decision whether introduction of a

new route KB 22 by the Regional Transport Authority in this resolution is in conformity with the provisions of the Act or has been done in excess of

the powers conferred therein and such decision shall be taken within six weeks from the date of communication of this order. The writ petitioner is

directed to communicate this order to the said authority and shall enclose the writ petition along with the communicating letter for better appreciation

of the facts. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Â No order as to costs. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for,

be given to the learned advocates for the parties.