ANJAN KUMAR MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner is an existing stage carriage permit operator in respect of route '215' and '215/1'. He is aggrieved by change of alignment of route 47, which is a notified route under Section 71(3)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(2.) MR . Dilip Kumar Samanta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in view of the fact that the route is a notified route, curtailment or extension of the route was impermissible in law. More so, such curtailment/extension has been made on the recommendation of a Minister, which vitiates the decision of the respondent/Board. In support of such submission, Mr. Samanta relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pancham Chand & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., reported in : (2008) 7 SCC 117.

(3.) IN rebuttal, Mr. Samanta relied on a decision in Manik Lal Maji vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in : 2012 (2) CHN(Cal) 172 and an unreported decision dated 18th June, 2014 in W.P. 3535(W) of 2014 in support of his contention that a permit holder plying vehicle in the area through which a notified route has been prescribed is entitled to challenge any variation of the notified route.