Paritosh Joddar & Ors. vs The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-

The two writ petitions as mentioned above are connected and bear similar issues. Hence both have been heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

The petitioners in writ petition No. WPA 12778 of 2023, who are the operators over Route No. 39, 39A and 39A/1, have challenged the resolution of RTA Kolkata dated February 9, 2010 and its other resolution dated April 12, 2023. They have prayed for setting aside of both and for further direction allowing the petitioners to ply vehicles on the alignment from Picnic Garden to Howrah Station (via Kushtia, Chittaranjan Hospital, Mallick Bazar, Sealdah, M.G.Road), which is the original route alignment of Route No. 39A/2.

The petitioners in WPA 16629 of 2023 have alleged about illegal and unauthorised plying of vehicle on Route No. 39A/2 by the petitioners in WPA 12778 of 2023, in the common stretch of alignment used by the said petitioners and sought for due implementation of the resolution of RTA Kolkata dated April 12, 2023.

Vide the notification No. 2129-WT/8S-50/2000 Pt. III dated May 7, 2003, published under section 71(3)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1980, fleet strength of Route No.39A/2 (from Howrah Station to Picnic Garden), has been fixed as 18. The petitioners in WPA 12778 of 2023 were granted permits over the route, in the years 2015, 2016 and 2018 respectively.

The petitioners in WPA 16629 of 2023 are the permit holders and operators over Route No. S-128 and S-128/1. Vide the same notification, that is dated May 7, 2003, maximum number of stage carriage permits over Route No.S-128 was fixed as 30.

Much before the petitioners in WPA 12778 of 2023, were granted permit over Route No. 39, 39A and 39A/1, in the years 2015, 2016 and 2018 respectively, one Mr. Ashok Ganguli, Secretary, Route Committee of Route No. 39, 39A and 39A/2, submitted prayer for extension of Route No. 39A/2, to RTA Kolkata on September 18, 2006. In the impugned resolution dated February 9, 2010, the said prayer of extension of Route No. 39A/2 was allowed. Now the new road alignment comes to be from Bhojer hat to Howrah Station (via Bhatipota, Leather Complex Gate No. 3, Banadevitala, Leather Complex Gate No. 1, Kata Tala, Kolkata Police Fari, Kachageri, Bamanghata Bazar, Jalpath 1 No. Government Colony , B.I.T. College, Bantala Bazar, Koyla Depo, Chowbagha, Paschim Chowbagha, Arupota Cuvert, VIP Bridge, Science City More, Topsia, Kohinoor Market, Darga Road/4 No. Bridge Crossing, Lady Brabourn College, Mullick Bazar/Park Street Crossing, James School, Nil Ratan Medical College & Hospital, Chabighar Cinema, College Street/M.G. Road Crossing, Burrabazar P.S., Howrah Bridge approach).

The petitioners in WPA 12778 of 2023 have alleged that vide the impugned resolution as above, the route alignment of Route No. 39A/2 has been altered absolutely thereby curtailing a portion of route from Kohinoor Market to Picnic Garden (VIP Bazar) and extending the said route up to Bhojer hat from Darga Road/No.4 Bridge Crossing.

Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in WPA 12778 of 2023 has submitted firstly that in response to an application for extension of route, the authority could not have lawfully effected both curtailment and extension of the route together. It is submitted that in accordance with Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a change in the name of extension of route thereby effecting both curtailment as well as extension thereof, is not permissible. Allegedly, in the instant case, the respondent authority has acted in such an impermissible manner which according to Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioners amount to variation of the existing route. He submits that there are also criteria stipulated in the statute as to when and by what manner variation of an existing route is permissible. That is, variation is permissible keeping the termini of the route intact. However, also allegedly, in this case as per the impugned resolution of RTA, Kolkata dated February 09, 2010 allowed the terminus to be altered, in violation of what the law has provided. It is stated that a portion of route from ―Kohinoor Market to Picnic Garden (VIP Bazar)‖ stood curtailed whereas the alignment stood extended up to Bhojer Hat from Darga Road/No. 4 Bridge Crossing. He submits that due to such gross violation of the provisions of law, the decision adopted by the RTA, Kolkata on February 09, 2010 is illegal and liable to be quashed.

The decision of the RTA, Kolkata vide resolution dated February 09, 2010 also stands in violation of an earlier notification issued by the Transport Department, Government of West Bengal on August 02, 2004, Mr. Chatterjee has submitted. It is submitted by the Government took a policy decision whereby the State Transport Authority, West Bengal and all the Regional Transport Authorities in the State have been directed not to issue any new permit for stage carriage originating, terminating and/or passing through the Central Business District that is, Esplanade and Bandstand in Kolkata and Howrah Station and approach area of Howrah bridge. It was decided that no new bus route should be created/formulated within Kolkata and Howrah in view of such restriction. Mr. Chatterjee has submitted that decision of the RTA, Kolkata vide resolution dated February 09, 2010 amounts to creation of a new route rather than extension of an existing route, due to change of complete alignment of route No. 39A/2. Therefore, it is submitted that the RTA, Kolkata has acted unauthorizedly and beyond jurisdiction in adopting resolution dated February 09, 2010.

Next, it is argued that though a decision of change and/or extension of route was taken by the respondent/Regional Transport Authority, Kolkata vide resolution dated February 09, 2010, still when the petitioners were granted permits in the year 2015, 2016 and 2018 respectively, they have been provided with the ‗Fare Chart‘ issued for the route alignment from Picnic Garden Road to Howrah Station which is the old alignment of the route. Therefore, according to the writ petitioners here, the extended route has never been made effective by the respondent authority till the year 2023, when the petitioners were restrained to ply vehicle from Picnic Garden to Howrah Station on March 06, 2023 for the first time and were directed to operate from Bhojer Hat to Howrah Station. It is submitted that endorsement of the old route that is from Picinic Garden to Howrah Station was made in Part A and B of the permits of the petitioner, even after extension of route has said to have been given effect to vide resolution dated February 09, 2010.

It is not only that the petitioners have never restrained to operate over the old alignment of the route since the time they have been granted with the permit but also that never the petitioners were required to seek for counter-signature of the RTA, South 24 Paraganas in terms of Section 88, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 102 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which would have been otherwise required for the petitioner to ply their vehicle over the so-called extended new route alignment from Bhojer Hat to Howrah Station. Also that, in spite of a condition having been mentioned in the resolution dated February 09, 2010 that the extension of route shall come into effect only with approval of the Transport Department of Government of West Bengal, no such approval has ever been sought for or granted. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the condition for the extension of route to come into effect has never been fulfilled. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be forced to comply with the so-called new alignment on road, which also otherwise tantamount to violation of their own permit conditions.

The petitioners have alleged that the respondent authority wanted to implement the extended route as above by endorsement in the respective permits of the petitioners, in resolution dated April 12, 2023 which is unfair, unjust, mala fide, motivated, arbitrary and vindictive.

For all the reasons as stated above, petitioners in writ petition No. 12778 of 2023 pray for that both the resolutions of the RTA, Kolkata dated February 09, 2010 and April 12, 2023 may be set aside and they may be allowed to continue operating over the route as per their original permit.

Mr. N.I. Khan, learned advocate has represented the writ petitioners in WPA 16629 of 2023, the petitioners therein are the operators of route No. S-128 (Eastern part to Howrah Fire Station) who filed a complaint dated January 03, 2023 before the respondent authority alleging unauthorized plying of vehicle over route No. 39A/2. Mr. Khan, learned advocate has submitted that instead of plying vehicle over the permitted route No. 39A/2, the operators are unauthorizedly and illegally violating the route alignment and plying on a different route, substantial operation of which falls within the common alignment of the route of the petitioners there. Mr. Khan has further submitted that in spite of lodging complaint, the RTA, Kolkata has not taken any steps with regard to the grievance of the petitioners and to restrain the wrong doers to continue with their unauthorized and illegal plying of vehicle. It is submitted that due to violation of the permit condition, the violators are liable for punishment of cancellation of their permits as per provision under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Mr. Khan further submits that change of route by way of extension, if any, was done by the respondent authority for public purpose and for the purpose of safety and security of the commuters. That, it no way prejudice the rights of the petitioner‘s in WPA 12778 of 2023. It is submitted that also the said persons have acted in violation of law by not applying for counter-signature before the RTA, South 24 Paraganas as the extended alignment of route amounts to be an inter-regional route spreading over the jurisdiction of the two Regional Transport Authorities.

State authorities are represented by Mr. Amal Kumar Sen, learned AGP. According to the State, there has been direction by the Hon‘ble Division Bench of this Court regarding restricted operation over the particular area of Kolkata city as well as Howrah (as mentioned above). In due compliance thereof, the State issued notification dated May 7, 2003 restraining vehicle operation within and at the vicinity of Kolkata, including Howrah. Mr. Sen has seriously disputed the submissions made that change brought in to the alignment of the route has amounted to variation of the route. He submits that STA, Kolkata is empowered under statute to bring into effect any extension of route considering the public interest. Therefore, in exercise of that power, the respondent authority has brought in changes over the route that too, particularly, keeping in mind the order of the Hon‘ble Division Bench, though without changing both the termini points over the route. Thus, it is submitted that the State respondent has duly complied with the statutory requirement of extension of a route. That, this right the RTA, Kolkata can exercise without permission approval or prior approval of the State authority as per law that, since there is no change of termini, the argument of the petitioners in WPA 12778 of 2023, that a new route has been formulated without sanction of State authority is only baseless.

Thus, the State respondent has fully supported the resolutions dated February 09, 2010 and April 12, 2023 adopted by the RTA, Kolkata as impugned in writ petition No. WPA 12778 of 2023.

About objection of the petitioners in WPA 16629 of 2023, for plying of the vehicles by the writ petitioners in WPA 12778 of 2023, over the route from Picnic Garden to Howrah Station, the petitioners in WPA 12778 of 2023 say that the other petitioners in WPA 16629 of 2023 are their rivals in trade being the other existing operators. It is submitted that the existing operators, who are rival in trade, have no locus standi to raise any objection in accordance with the law settled. In this regard, the petitioners in WPA 12778 of 2023 have relied on the judgments of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg versus the Union of India reported at AIR 1992 SC 443 and the Larger Bench of this Court in Prabhat Pan and others versus State of West Bengal reported at (2015) 2 CHN 185.

Mr. Khan, learned advocate for the petitioners in WPA 16629 of 2023 has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Subhash Chandra and others versus State of U.P. and others reported at AIR 1980 SC 800, to submit that route alignment is fixed necessarily for the purpose of convenience and safety of the public at large. That, it is not at the convenience of the individual operator to follow a particular route or time-table at his whims. That, it consists to be condition of permit which the law mandates for due performance by the operator.

Mr. Amal Kumar Sen, learned AGP while representing the State, has relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Secretary, Route No. 56 Bus Association versus Champadanga Dakshineswar Bus Association and others dated February 20, 1997 in FMAT 2902 of 1996. The Division Bench, in the said judgment has held that a separate prior formulation of the route by the State Government was not an indispensable pre-requisite for granting the permit. Route formulation could form part of the permit granting process and the Transport Authorities were competent to determine the route having regard to traffic and public transport considerations. The Court has held that, since the authorities had considered and approved the temporary route, the permit arrangement was not liable to be quashed merely because there had been no separate formal route formulation by the State Government. Thus, in the said judgment, the Court has clearly distinguished two aspects, firstly, formal route formulation by the State Government and permit arrangement over a route having regard to traffic and public transport considerations.

Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee, learned advocate for the petitioners in 12778 of 2023, has distinguished both the judgments relied on respectively by the petitioners of WPA 16629 of 2023 and the State. He submits that, in the factual background of the present case, the judgment of Mithilesh Garg (supra) has no manner of application to the instant case as the subject matter thereof is totally different and distinguishable, which relates to age of a vehicle. While distinguishing the judgment relied on by the State in the case of Secretary, Route No. 56 Bus Association (supra), Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate has stated that to be not applicable in the present case in which the Court has dealt with an emergent situation when Vivekananda Bridge had collapsed and the route had to be altered for the said compelling reason; that the Court has observed in the same, that arrangement decided upon by the authorities is a temporary one for the time till the bridge is repaired and reopened.

In essence, the petitioners in WPA 12778 of 2023 have challenged the authority of RTA, Kolkata, that it lacked jurisdiction to issue notification dated February 09, 2010. Allegedly also, the statutory procedure for alteration of a stage carriage route was not followed. Furthermore, that the notification dated February 09, 2010 has never been implemented or given effect to in case of the present petitioners, before the subsequent impugned resolution dated April 12, 2023. Therefore, for them it was never operative and cannot be made so any further. The petitioners‘ contention is barred upon administrative conduct or acquiescence, that they continuously used old alignment with knowledge of the respondent authority, that the authority continuously collected taxes, issued fitness certificates or otherwise treated their operation as permissible. Finally, that the individual permits of the petitioners in WPA 12778 of 2023 expressly authorize each permit holder to ply over the route alignment as per pre-February 09, 2010 regime. No change in the permit conditions have ever been made since after issuance of the purported resolution dated February 09, 2010, in the permit conditions of the petitioners. Therefore, those persons claim it to be their rightful entitlement as per terms and conditions of their individual permits, to continue plying vehicle over the old alignment of route which existed during regime pre-February 09, 2010. Any change therein, according to them would amount to changing the route itself, which would require separate set of statutory compliance to be made by the appropriate statutory authority empowered and authorized to do change in route alignment. For all these reasons, they have stated that not only the impugned resolution dated February 09, 2010 but also the impugned resolution dated April 12, 2023 which sought to endorse the new alignment in the permits of the petitioners, stand contrary to law and liable to be set aside being contrary to law.

To best understand the pre-February 09, 2010 regime route alignment and the change introduced therein after February 09, 2010, the following flow chart and map may be of some help –

HOWRAH HOWRAH SEALDAH SEALDAH NO. 4 BRIDGE / DARGA ROAD NO. 4 BRIDGE / DARGA ROAD KOHINOOR MARKET TOPSIA LEATHER COMPLEX PICNIC GARDEN (VIP BAZAR) BHOJER HAT

The following diagram may be used to understand the alleged overlapping or clash which the petitioners in WPA 16629 of 2023 claims to have happened due to non-alignment of the changed route condition by the petitioners of WPA 12778 of 2023 –

Having noticed the respective submissions, the statutory scheme and the route diagrams placed on record, the principal question which falls for consideration is whether the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Kolkata dated February 9, 2010 can be characterised as an act of creation or formulation of an altogether new route, beyond the jurisdiction of the said authority, or whether it is, in substance and in law, a permissible alteration/extension of the alignment of an existing route, namely Route No. 39A/2. The answer to the question, in the facts of the present case, must necessarily be found not merely from the description of the route in the resolution but by examining the identity and continuity of the route before and after the impugned decision.

Section 2(38) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines "route" to mean a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another. Section 80(3) of the said Act contemplates variation, extension and curtailment of a route covered by an existing permit and treats an application for such alteration, subject to the statutory provisos, as an application for grant of a new permit. The provision, therefore, itself recognises that a route may undergo variation, extension or curtailment without every such alteration being treated, in substance, as the creation of an entirely independent route. The statutory distinction between an alteration of an existing route and formulation of a new route cannot be lost sight of.

The second proviso to Section 80(3), in particular, recognises variation and extension within the prescribed limits and makes public convenience the controlling consideration. The statutory scheme consequently does not proceed on the premise that the identity of a stage-carriage route becomes immutable upon its first formulation.

It is true that Section 68(3)(ca) of the Act provides that the Government shall formulate routes for plying stage carriages. The petitioners are, therefore, right to the limited extent that the Regional Transport Authority cannot, by an administrative device, arrogate to itself the statutory power of the Government to formulate an altogether new route. But that proposition does not carry the matter any further. The question is not whether the RTA could formulate a new route; the question is whether what was done on February 9, 2010 amounted to such formulation at all. The distinction is fundamental. Formulation of a route and alteration of the alignment of an existing route are not synonymous exercises. The former creates the statutory identity of a route; the latter regulates the line of travel by which an already existing route is to be operated, in accordance with the statutory and regulatory framework governing stage-carriage services.

The precise terms of the resolution dated February 09, 2010, as communicated by the memo dated April 16, 2010, assume significance in determining the true character of the decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority, Kolkata. The resolution records that the RTA ‗decided to extend the alignment of Route No.39A/2 upto Bhojerhat subject to necessary approval from the Transport Deptt.‘ and further records that the desired NOC in that regard had already been received from the RTA, South 24-Parganas. The language employed by the statutory authority is thus not one of formulation or creation of a new route, but expressly one of extension of the alignment of an existing route. This distinction is of some importance in the context of Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The said provision expressly brings within its contemplation an application involving ‗variation, extension or curtailment‘ of the route specified in a stage carriage permit and treats such an application as an application for grant of a new permit for the purpose of the statutory procedure. The provision, therefore, itself recognises that an existing route may lawfully be varied or extended without the resulting route necessarily becoming, in substance, an altogether newly formulated route. The second proviso to Section 80(3) further prescribes that, in the case of an extension, the distance covered by such extension shall not exceed twenty-four kilometres from the terminus and that such extension within the prescribed limit can be made only when the transport authority is satisfied that the same will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so extended or any part thereof. The Division Bench of this Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. versus Arup Kumar Ghosh, APOT 117 of 2025, decided on September 04, 2025, while examining the very scope and object of Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, has emphasised that public convenience is the paramount consideration underlying the provision and that the statutory requirements governing variation and extension cannot be treated as dispensable. The Division Bench has, upon a plain reading of Section 80(3), recognised that an application for alteration, variation, extension or curtailment of an existing stage-carriage route falls within the statutory scheme of Section 80(3), and has specifically held that the convenience of the public has to be considered while dealing with such alteration. In the present case, therefore, the legal character of the resolution has to be determined by the statutory expression actually used therein. It is an extension of the alignment of Route No.39A/2, and not a formulation by the RTA of a new and independent route. The requirement of twenty-four kilometres under the second proviso must consequently be applied to the proposed extension from the relevant terminus of the existing route, and not by treating the entire length of Route No.39A/2 from Howrah Station to Bhojerhat as the ‗extension‘. The route materials placed before this Court show that the pre-existing alignment terminated at VIP Bazar/Picnic Garden and that the subsequent alignment proceeded from the existing corridor towards Bhojerhat through the eastern/south-eastern corridor including Topsia, Science City, Bantala and the Leather Complex. Historical route material likewise records both the earlier Howrah Station– VIP Bazar alignment and the subsequent Howrah Station– Bhojherhat alignment. Thus, the statutory distance requirement has to be tested with reference to the additional distance between the erstwhile terminus and Bhojerhat, and not with reference to the entire Howrah–Bhojerhat route.

On the materials placed before the Court, there is no basis for treating the entire distance from Howrah Station to Bhojerhat as the extension contemplated by Section 80(3). The route map, in fact, demonstrates substantial continuity of the pre-existing route and an alteration/extension at its eastern/south-eastern end. Further, the resolution itself did not purport to make the extension operational unconditionally; it expressly made the decision subject to the ‗necessary approval from the Transport Deptt.‘ and recorded that the NOC of RTA South 24-Parganas had already been obtained. The conditional language employed by the RTA is significant. It demonstrates that the RTA was conscious of the statutory hierarchy and did not treat its resolution as equivalent to an independent governmental formulation of a new route. Rather, it resolved to extend the alignment of an existing route, subject to obtaining the approval which was required at the governmental level. Such a resolution cannot, therefore, be characterised as an assumption by the RTA of a power expressly reserved to the Government under Section 68(3)(ca) of the Act of 1988 to formulate routes. The statutory scheme has to be read harmoniously: the Government retains the power to formulate routes, whereas the transport authorities exercise the regulatory powers contemplated by Section 80(3) in relation to variation and extension of existing permitted routes, subject to the conditions prescribed by the statute. The distinction is not merely semantic but goes to the jurisdictional question raised by the petitioners. A decision to extend an existing route, subject to the necessary governmental approval, is legally different from an unauthorised decision by the RTA to formulate an entirely new route. The resolution dated February 9, 2010 falls in the former category.

The route diagrams appended to the record make the position particularly clear. Prior to February 9, 2010, Route No. 39A/2 proceeded from Howrah Station through the established common corridor including Sealdah and No. 4 Bridge/Darga Road and thereafter towards Kohinoor Market and Picnic Garden (VIP Bazar). Following the impugned decision, the portion from Kohinoor Market to Picnic Garden was curtailed and, from the No. 4 Bridge/Darga Road area, the alignment was carried towards Topsia, Leather Complex and ultimately Bhojer Hat. The portion of the journey from Howrah Station through the established central corridor was not extinguished and replaced by an unrelated line of travel; rather, the line of travel was redirected at a particular point and the service was extended towards another destination.

The diagrams therefore disclose continuity rather than rupture. The route did not acquire an unrelated origin and destination disconnected from the pre-existing Route No. 39A/2. What occurred was an alteration in the line of travel of the same stage-carriage service.

The diagram placed at paragraph 22 of the record itself demonstrates the point: the common portion from Howrah through Sealdah up to the No. 4 Bridge/Darga Road remains identifiable, while the divergence occurs thereafter.

The argument that the entire route was "absolutely altered" because one portion was curtailed and another portion was added proceeds from a description of the physical consequence of the alteration, rather than from its legal character. A route is not rendered a newly formulated route merely because its alignment has been substantially modified. If that were the test, every substantial alteration of an existing stage-carriage route would necessarily require formulation of a new route, notwithstanding the statutory provisions which expressly contemplate variation, extension and curtailment. The appropriate test is one of legal identity and continuity. Here, Route No. 39A/2 remained the route in question; the existing service from Howrah Station continued; the established central-city portion continued; and the alteration concerned the line of travel at and beyond the No. 4 Bridge/Darga Road area. The petitioners' description of the alteration as the "creation of a new route" is therefore not borne out by the route itself.

Rule 104 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 specifically contemplates extension or variation of a route within the prescribed statutory framework and provides for concurrence where the proposed extension or variation falls within the jurisdiction of another Regional Transport Authority. Rule 105 of the said Rules of 1989, on the other hand, recognises the power of the State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority, within its respective region, to introduce or augment stage-carriage services having regard to the needs of the commuting public and the requirement of an efficient means of service, subject to the prescribed procedure. The legislative intention is thus plainly not to freeze a route alignment for all time. Public transport is inherently a regulatory field in which the competent authority must retain the ability to adjust routes to meet changing traffic conditions, commuting requirements, public convenience and considerations of efficient transport administration. The Division Bench judgment in Secretary, Route No. 56 Bus Association (supra) is instructive in this context. The controversy there involved an altered route which partially overlapped another existing route owing to the closure of a portion of the earlier alignment. The Division Bench recognised the competence of the transport authorities to make an appropriate route arrangement having regard to traffic and public transport considerations. The principle emerging from the said decision is that the transport regulatory power cannot be understood in an excessively rigid manner divorced from the practical requirements of public transport. The said principle is further reinforced by Rule 105 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, which expressly places the need of the commuting public and provision of an efficient means of service in the forefront of route administration.

It is necessary, however, to make one further aspect clear. The fact that the resolution is characterised as for extension of the route, does not, by itself, dispense with the statutory requirements of Section 80(3). The Division Bench in Arup Kumar Ghosh (supra) has made it clear that the expression ‗variation‘ or ‗extension‘ cannot be divorced from the statutory conditions accompanying such exercise and that public convenience is a paramount consideration under Section 80(3). The question, therefore, is not whether the RTA could ever extend the alignment of an existing route—it plainly could do so within the statutory framework—but whether the particular extension resolved upon on February 9, 2010 was within the statutory limits and whether the competent authority had proceeded upon the considerations mandated by law. The resolution records that the RTA had received the NOC from RTA, South 24-Parganas and expressly made the proposed extension subject to the necessary approval of the Transport Department. The subsequent governmental approval, if any, and the materials accompanying the same are consequently relevant for determining whether the statutory safeguards stood satisfied. In the absence of a demonstrated violation of the twenty-four-kilometre ceiling, or a demonstrated failure to consider public convenience and the statutory question whether a separate permit was expedient, the Court cannot convert an otherwise permissible extension of an existing route into an act of creation of a new route merely because the altered alignment substantially changed the eastern terminus of the service.

The reliance of the petitioners in WPA 12778 of 2023 upon the Government notification restricting creation of new routes in the central business areas of Kolkata and Howrah also does not assist them. The prohibition against creation or formulation of a new route cannot logically be converted into a prohibition against alteration of an existing route. The object of the policy was to prevent proliferation of new routes and consequent traffic and operational difficulties in the specified areas; it cannot be read as requiring an existing route to remain permanently confined to an alignment which the competent authority, in exercise of its statutory regulatory function, has subsequently altered. Indeed, to accept the petitioners' construction would produce the anomalous consequence that an authority competent to regulate an existing stage-carriage service would be powerless to rationalise its alignment merely because one end of the route has been altered, even where such alteration is found necessary in public interest.

There is another aspect of the matter which deserves emphasis. The petitioners themselves were granted permits only in the years 2015, 2016 and 2018, namely several years after the resolution dated February 9, 2010. The record therefore does not disclose any pre-existing contractual or statutory right in their favour which had accrued prior to the alteration of the route. Their permits were consequently granted in a regulatory environment in which the resolution dated February 9, 2010 already existed. The fact that the petitioners were subsequently furnished with fare charts or permit endorsements reflecting the earlier alignment may raise an administrative issue concerning implementation, but it cannot by itself repeal or render non-existent an earlier decision of the competent transport authority. An administrative act inconsistent with an operative statutory or regulatory decision cannot acquire superior legal efficacy or standard, merely by repetition. The argument founded upon long continuation of operation on the old alignment is thus untenable. A permit-holder cannot acquire, by continued user alone, a right to disregard a subsequently notified route alignment. The principle is elementary, that is, practice cannot amend law; administrative inaction cannot confer a statutory entitlement contrary to the governing instrument; and repeated tolerance of an irregularity cannot transform the irregularity into legality. If the route had been validly altered on February 9, 2010, the petitioners' (WPA 12778 of 2023) right to operate thereafter had to be tested with reference to the route alignment then legally governing Route No. 39A/2. Their continued operation upon the superseded alignment could not constitute a source of right to that alignment, addressing the same only, to be the existing permit conditions to be followed by them. Even the plea of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked to compel a public authority to continue an arrangement contrary to law or to prevent it from discharging its statutory regulatory function. At the highest, legitimate expectation may require fairness in the manner of transition, communication or implementation; it does not confer a substantive right to perpetuate an alignment which is no longer the notified alignment. The distinction between an expectation as to administrative treatment and an enforceable legal right is particularly important in a field such as public transport, where route alignments are necessarily susceptible to change in public interest.

The contention that the petitioners' individual permits contain the old alignment and therefore confer a vested right to continue upon it, is found to be unacceptable. A permit is a statutory instrument issued within the regulatory framework of the Motor Vehicles Act. It cannot be construed in isolation from subsequent lawful orders or route determinations made by the competent authority. The permit-holder acquires a right to operate subject to the route, conditions and regulatory regime lawfully governing the permit. A permit cannot be treated as a conveyance of an immutable proprietary right in a particular road alignment. The Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg (supra) emphasised the liberalised scheme of the 1988 Act and the public character of the transport system, observing that the transport system is intended for the benefit and convenience of the public and that the liberalised policy is directed towards that object. At the same time, the Court cannot accept the proposition that Mithilesh Garg (supra) operates as an absolute bar against every challenge by an existing operator. The Full Bench of this Court in Prabhat Pan (supra), authoritatively explained the true scope of Mithilesh Garg. The Full Bench has held, in substance, that an existing operator cannot challenge the entry of a rival merely because the latter's operation may prejudice his business or commercial interest; but ratio decided in Mithilesh Garg’s case (supra) cannot be applied to mean that an existing operator is without remedy against an illegal act of the authority or the operator.

The submission that the RTA, Kolkata could not have acted upon the prayer for extension because the result involved both curtailment and extension also does not merit acceptance. The statutory scheme must be understood in substance and not by isolating a single word used in an administrative resolution. The authority was called upon to regulate the alignment of an existing stage-carriage service. The fact that, for operational purposes, one segment was discontinued while another segment was introduced does not, by that circumstance alone, convert the exercise into the formulation of a new route. The Court must examine whether the authority has departed from the identity of the existing service and created an unrelated route or whether it has modified the line of travel of an existing service. The route map answers that question in favour of the latter.

The statutory power of the RTA cannot be viewed independently of public convenience. The Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules constitute a regulatory code intended to secure an orderly and efficient system of public transportation. Section 80(3) of the said Act itself makes public convenience a statutory consideration in relation to permissible variation or extension. The West Bengal Rules similarly recognise the needs of the commuting public and efficient service as considerations governing route administration. A construction which makes the authority incapable of responding to changed traffic patterns or public requirements, despite the statutory recognition of such considerations, would defeat rather than advance the legislative object.

It is also material that the prayer for extension of Route No. 39A/2 had been made as far back as September 18, 2006 and was considered by the RTA before the petitioners in WPA 12778 of 2023 obtained their permits in 2015, 2016 and 2018. The resolution dated February 09, 2010 was therefore not an ad hoc decision suddenly directed against the present petitioners. The decision substantially preceded their entry into the field. The subsequent resolution dated April 12, 2023, therefore, cannot be characterised as an act which created the altered route for the first time. Its essential purpose was to give operational effect to the alignment already determined earlier. The challenge to the 2023 resolution must consequently fail once the validity of the underlying 2010 decision is upheld. The argument based upon the absence of counter-signature under Section 88 of the Act also does not advance the petitioners' case beyond the statutory framework. Section 88 becomes material where a permit or operation extends into the jurisdiction of another Regional Transport Authority and the statutory requirements relating to inter-regional operation are attracted. Rule 104 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules itself contemplates the concurrence of the concerned Regional Transport Authority in cases of extension or variation falling within another region. The mere possibility that the revised alignment traverses an area falling beyond the original regional jurisdiction cannot, however, retrospectively convert the route-alignment decision into the formulation of an altogether new route. The consequence, if any, is compliance with the statutory inter-regional machinery; it does not invalidate the underlying determination of the alignment merely by nomenclature.

It is therefore found that the resolution dated February 9, 2010 cannot be characterised as an unauthorised creation of a new route merely because it curtailed the portion between Kohinoor Market and Picnic Garden (VIP Bazar) and carried the alignment from the No. 4 Bridge/Darga Road area through Topsia and Leather Complex towards Bhojer Hat. The map demonstrates that the altered alignment retained the substantial existing corridor and altered the line of travel at the relevant point. The legal identity of Route No. 39A/2 was not thereby extinguished and replaced by an unrelated route. The contention that such action was beyond the jurisdiction of the RTA, Kolkata is, accordingly, rejected.

This brings the Court to WPA 16629 of 2023. The petitioners therein are operators of Route No. S-128 and S-128/1 and complain of overlapping operation by the petitioners in WPA 12778 of 2023. Their grievance, however, is founded upon the assumption that the operators of Route No. 39A/2, by continuing upon the old alignment, have created an unlawful overlap with their route. The route diagram placed at paragraph 23 of the record requires the objection to be examined carefully. It depicts Route S-128 and the post-February 09, 2010 alignment of Route 39A/2 and identifies the common corridor. The very existence of that common corridor, however, cannot by itself establish illegality. What has to be established is that the operation complained of is contrary to the legally prescribed alignment of Route 39A/2. The argument of the petitioners in WPA 16629 of 2023 that the alleged overlap would disappear, only if the changed alignment of Route No. 39A/2 is followed, cannot be accepted. The alleged change in Route No. 39A/2 cannot be employed as the legal yardstick for determining the validity of the alignment of Route No. 39A/2. The two route alignments are separate regulatory matters. More importantly, the common stretch between the concerned points is not a phenomenon brought into existence merely because of the subsequent alteration complained of in respect of Route No. 39A/2. The route diagram demonstrates that the relevant common corridor existed even prior to the alleged later change in Route No. 39A/2. Consequently, the supposed overlap cannot logically be attributed to the failure to follow the later alignment of Route No. 39A/2. The objection therefore suffers from a basic factual and causal infirmity. The distinction is therefore between overlap which is legally sanctioned by the respective route alignments and unauthorised operation beyond the route for which the permit has been granted. The former is not rendered illegal merely because it causes commercial competition; the latter would plainly attract the statutory consequences applicable to violation of permit conditions. On the material presently before this Court, the petitioners in WPA 16629 of 2023 have failed to establish that the alleged common stretch is itself outside the legally permissible alignment of Route No. 39A/2. The route diagram, rather than supporting their contention, demonstrates that the common portion forms part of the respective route alignments independently of the subsequent alteration alleged in Route No. 39A/1.

The principle stated by the Supreme Court in Subhash Chandra and others (supra), that the conditions attached to a permit are intended to regulate the operation of transport services and that the regulatory conditions are not matters left to the individual convenience of an operator, is relevant to this aspect. Route alignment is a regulatory condition designed not merely for the convenience of an individual operator but for the orderly movement and convenience and safety of the travelling public. That principle, however, cuts both ways. It means that the operators of Route No. 39A/2 must follow the legally operative alignment; it does not mean that the operators of Route S-128 acquire a right to insist upon a particular alignment of Route 39A/2 merely because portions of the two routes overlap. The law stated in Mithilesh Garg (supra) also has relevance here, but only to the extent of recognising that the transport system is intended to serve the public and that competition or overlapping operation, by itself, does not constitute infringement of a vested right of an existing operator. The Supreme Court rejected the contention that existing operators have a right to exclude other operators merely because their entry may affect the existing operator's business. The Full Bench in Prabhat Pan (supra) subsequently clarified that the protection of Mithilesh Garg (supra) is not a licence for an authority to act illegally. But that qualification does not assist the petitioners in WPA 16629 of 2023 because, on the merits, no illegal route operation has been established merely by demonstrating an overlap.

The distinction is therefore between overlap which is legally sanctioned by the respective route alignments and unauthorised operation beyond the route for which the permit has been granted. The former is not rendered illegal merely because it causes commercial competition; the latter would plainly attract the statutory consequences applicable to violation of permit conditions. On the material presently before this Court, the petitioners in WPA 16629 of 2023 have failed to establish that the alleged common stretch is itself outside the legally permissible alignment of Route No. 39A/2. The route diagram, rather than supporting their contention, demonstrates that the common portion forms part of the respective route alignments independently of the subsequent alteration alleged in Route No. 39A/2. It follows that the complaint of the petitioners in WPA 16629 of 2023 cannot be sustained merely on the basis of commercial overlap. The decision in Prabhat Pan (supra) does not authorise an existing operator to secure judicial exclusion of another operator merely because their operations intersect. It only preserves the right to question an illegal act. Since no such illegality has been established in the present case, the substantive foundation of WPA 16629 of 2023 is absent. There is, therefore, no necessity to decide the matter on the narrower ground of locus standi alone. Indeed, such an approach would not accurately reflect the law declared in Prabhat Pan (supra). The appropriate conclusion is that although the petitioners in WPA 16629 of 2023 were entitled to bring their grievance regarding an alleged illegal operation before the appropriate authority and, in an appropriate case, before the Court, the grievance must fail on merits because the alleged illegality has not been established.

On the other hand, the challenge in WPA 12778 of 2023 presents a somewhat different question. The petitioners there undoubtedly have a commercial and operational interest in the old alignment, and their individual permits contain references which, according to them, continued to reflect the pre-February 9, 2010 alignment. Such circumstances may explain why they continued to operate on the old route. They cannot, however, supply legal justification for continuing an operation which is inconsistent with the route alignment validly determined by the competent authority. A continued course of conduct, even if known to the authority, cannot repeal a lawful regulatory decision. If the petitioners considered the 2010 decision invalid, the appropriate course was to challenge it in accordance with law. What they could not do was to treat its alleged non-implementation as equivalent to its legal extinction. Equally, the fact that the authorities may have issued fitness certificates, collected taxes or permitted the vehicles to operate on the earlier alignment does not amount to an adjudication that the old alignment remained legally operative. Such administrative acts are necessarily referable to the statutory framework and cannot be treated as an implied repeal of the resolution dated February 09, 2010. The petitioners' argument, if accepted, would lead to the undesirable proposition that the longer an authority tolerates an incorrect mode of operation, the stronger becomes the operator's right to continue it. Such a proposition would invert the relationship between administrative practice and statutory authority.

The Court is not unmindful of the submission that Section 68(3)(ca) of the Act of 1988 reserves route formulation to the Government. That provision is important and must be respected. But precisely because it must be respected, the Court has examined whether the impugned decision amounts to formulation of a new route. For the reasons already recorded, it does not. The existing Route No. 39A/2 remained the subject of regulation; its alignment was altered in the manner shown in the route diagram. The statutory power to regulate, vary and extend an existing stage-carriage service cannot be equated with the power to formulate an entirely new route. This construction harmonises Section 68(3)(ca) with Section 80(3) of the statute and the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, rather than rendering any of them otiose. The interpretation advanced by the petitioners, on the other hand, would make the statutory provisions permitting variation and extension practically incapable of operation wherever the alteration is substantial. The decision of the Division Bench in Secretary, Route No. 56 Bus Association (supra) also illustrates why the Court should not approach the question by an excessively formalistic distinction between a route and its alignment. There, too, the transport authority was required to respond to an altered traffic situation and the arrangement involved overlapping with another existing route. The Division Bench recognised the competence of the transport authorities to determine an appropriate transport arrangement having regard to traffic and public transport considerations. The present case stands on an even clearer footing because the alteration under consideration was not shown to be an accidental or informal departure by individual operators but originated in a resolution of the competent transport authority following a prior prayer for extension.

The Court therefore holds that the petitioners in WPA 12778 of 2023 do not possess a vested or accrued right to continue plying on the pre-February 09, 2010 alignment merely because their permits were subsequently issued with references to that alignment or because they were permitted to operate thereon for a period of time. Their right is to operate in accordance with the route alignment lawfully governing Route No. 39A/2. Their objection to the resolution dated February 9, 2010, founded on alleged creation of a new route, is rejected. Their consequential challenge to the resolution dated April 12, 2023 must also fail, since the latter cannot be invalidated merely for giving effect to an alignment which had already been determined by the earlier resolution. The challenge, however, is not rejected on the ground that an existing operator has no right whatsoever to question an action of the transport authority. Such a proposition would be inconsistent with the Full Bench decision in Prabhat Pan (supra). The challenge is rejected because, upon examination, the impugned action is not shown to be an illegal formulation of a new route, nor has any statutory prohibition been demonstrated which rendered the RTA, Kolkata incompetent to regulate the alignment of the existing Route No. 39A/2 in the manner complained of.

For the foregoing reasons, I find no ground to interfere with the resolution of the RTA, Kolkata dated February 9, 2010. The challenge to the subsequent resolution dated April 12, 2023, which seeks to implement the altered alignment in the permits of the concerned operators, also fails. The petitioners in WPA 12778 of 2023, therefore, cannot claim a legal entitlement to continue plying over the superseded alignment from Kohinoor Market to Picnic Garden (VIP Bazar), contrary to the route alignment determined by the competent authority.

WPA 16629 of 2023 is equally liable to fail. The petitioners therein have not established that the operation complained of constitutes an unauthorised overlap arising from non-compliance with the altered alignment of Route No. 39A/2. The common stretch identified in the route diagram existed independently of the alleged subsequent alteration of Route No. 39A/2 and cannot be treated as an illegality attributable to the operators of Route No. 39A/2. The mere fact of overlapping routes, without proof of operation outside the legally sanctioned alignment, furnishes no ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

WPA 16629 of 2023 is, accordingly, liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the challenge put forth by the petitioners in WPA 12778 of 2023 to the resolutions of the Regional Transport Authority, Kolkata dated February 09, 2010 and April 12, 2023 is found to be unsustainable. The said writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.