Supreme Court: In a special leave petition against the judgment and order passed by the Calcutta High Court, wherein the Court held that the Notification dated 06-06-2014 altering stage carriage permits, is an administrative order and a policy decision of the State and the same is not ex facie unconstitutional, the division bench of Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. refused to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.
The Notification dated 06-06-2014 was issued by the District Magistrate(‘DM’) in exercise of power under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Because of this notification, the stage carriage permit holders (petitioners) were required to stop at two new bus stations i.e Nawabhat and Alisha in Burdwan Town, instead of Tinkonia bus station where they were used to stop. New bus terminuses were constructed by the administration in view of the huge increase in population and traffic.
The petitioners had grievances, that only the State Government is empowered to issue any notification under Chapter V and Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the DM has no authority to issue any such notification. Further, it was stated that the impugned notification has the effect of altering a stage carriage permit. The DM by the impugned notification sought to do indirectly what he could not do directly. Therefore, impugned notification is illegal.
The petitioner submitted that the Notification has curtailed the route of the petitioners in gross violation of Sections 72, 86, 115 and 116 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988
The petitioners submitted that the residents of Burdwan Town would be seriously prejudiced if they would have to get down and board at the new bus stops. They would be compelled to take additional local transport to reach their destination. Further, the High Court failed to consider it necessary to call for an affidavit of the Principal Secretary, Transport Department to ascertain whether the DM has been authorised to issue any notification.
The petitioners were not concerned regarding shifting of the bus stands and were only concerned about plying of their vehicles in Burdwan Town as per the terms and conditions of their permit. Further, it stated that the impugned order has been adopted without invocation to Section 115 and 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
[SK Sajed Ali v State of West Bengal, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1224, Order dated 25-09-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner(s): Advocate Pijush K. Roy, Advocate N.I. Khan, Advocate Pritthish Roy, Advocate Kakali Roy, Advocate-On-Record Rajan K. Chourasia, Advocate Ankita Sharma
For Respondent(s): Senior Advocate Arabinda Chatterjee, Senior Advocate Malvika Trivedi, Advocate-On-Record Swarnendu Chatterjee, Advocate Deepakshi Garg, Advocate Yashwardhan Singh, Advocate Megha Saha, Advocate Sujal Gupta, Advocate Shailendra
