Joymalya Bagchi, J. - (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. Mr. Chairul Alam, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents raised the issue of locus standi of the petitioner to maintain the writ petition. He submitted that in view of the law declared in Mithilesh Garg Vs. Union of India, reported in : AIR 1992 SC 443 and bearing in mind the liberalized policy envisaged under the present legislation, a rival operator and that too, who is plying vehicle in a different route cannot maintain a challenge to a change of alignment of another route. He further submitted that there was no embargo in curtailment/extension of the route in question and that the decision had been validly modified in public interest and for the convenience of passengers.
(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.;