STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. versus S.K. NURUL AMIN

Citation: [2010] 7 S.C.R. 496 · Decided: 05-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 496 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
v. 
S.K. NURUL AMIN 
(Civil Appeal No. 1961 of 2006) 
JULY 05, 2010 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 72(1) - Interpretation of -
Grant of stage carriage permit - Power of State Transport 
C Authority to grant stage carriage permits with modification by 
curtailing a part of the routes applied for - Held: The State 
Transport Authority is not bound to grant a stage carriage 
permit as sought - It can refuse to grant such permit or grant 
permit"with such modifications as deemed fit by it -
o Curtailment of a route would be a modification as 
contemplated under s. 72(1) - State Transport Authority is not 
prohibited from curtailment in regard to portion of the route 
applied for, for any valid reason - So long as the reason for 
the modification is not found to be arbitrary or unreasonable, 
E the order of the Authority cannot be interfered with - The only 
restriction on the power of the Authority is that it cannot grant 
a permit for a route not specified in the application. 
Respondent made two applications to the State 
Transport Authority, West Bengal for grant of permanent 
F stage carriage permit. The first application was for a 
permit for the route Dhulian Bazar to Kolkata (via 
Raghunathganj and Barasat) and the second application 
was for a permit .for the route Raghunathganj to Kolkata 
G 
H 
(via Barasat). 
The State Transport Authority, West Bengal offered 
permits for the routes Dhulian Bazar to Barasat and 
Raghunathganj to Barasat respectively, by curtailing/ 
496 
·STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. v. S.K. . 
497 
NURULAMIN 
excluding the last portion of the two applied routes from 
A 
Barasat to Kolkata (26 kms.). 
By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that 
when permits were sought for the routes - Dhulian Bazar 
to Kolkata and Raghunathganj to Kolkata, the State 
Transport Authority could not have offered permits by 
curtailing the routes, thereby changing one of the termini 
from Kolkata to Barasat, and that the orders of the State 
Transport Authority violated Section 72(1) of the Motor 
.vehicles Act, 1988. 
B 
c 
In appeal to this Court, the question which arose for 
consideration was whether the State Transport Authority 
had the power to grant stage carriage permits with 
modification by curtailing a part of the routes applied and 
hence, in the instant case, the Authority was justified in 
D 
curtailing the route and granting the permits only up to 
Barasat thereby deleting the last leg of the route from 
Barasat to· Kolkata. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD:1. Section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 
deals with grant of stage carriage permits. A careful 
reading of sub-section (1) of section 72 of the Act makes 
it clear that the State Transport Authority, West Bengal is 
E 
not bound to grant a stage carriage permit as sought. The 
F 
Authority could either grant the stage carriage permit in 
accordance with the application or refuse to grant such 
stage carriage permit or grant the stage carriage permit 
with such modifications as it deemed fit. The only 
restriction on the power of the Authority is that it could 
G 
not grant a permit for a route not specified in the 
application. [Paras 5,6] [501-E-H; 502-A-B] 
2. In this case, what the Authority has done is to 
grant the permanent stage carriage permits in regard to 
H 
498 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 7 S.C.R 
A· the routes for which the applications were made, but with 
a modification, by curtailing the routes for which the 
permits were applied, only up to Barasat. The Authority 
in effect therefore refused to grant the permit for the last 
leg (Barasat to Kolkata) of the two routes applied. 
B Though the communications from the Authority to the 
respondent did not contain the reason for curtailing the 
routes, it is stated that the resolutions of Authority (which 
led to the issue of the impugned communications) 
assigned the reason for curtailment. The reason was that 
c in view of the heavy traffic congestion and vehicular 
pollution in Kolkata, there was restriction of entry of new 
passenger vehicles into Kolkata and, therefore, the 
permits were granted only up to Barasat. [Para 7] (502-
C-E] 
D 
3. The High Court proceeded on the basis that when 
one of the termini is altered by the Authority, then the 
permit is not granted in respect of the route applied, and 
it would amount to granting a permit in respect of a 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.