IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14600 of 2007 NAND KISHORE SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Bipin Bihari Singh & S.K.Ranjan For the State : Mr. Awadesh Pandey, G.A.7 3 19.08.2008 Petitioner is the owner of a public carrier bus. He had applied for stage carrier permit for a certain route to the Regional Transport Authority, Chapra. His application was processed and thereafter he was granted permit no. 39 of 2007 and the permit was ultimately issued on or about 5.7.2007 valid for a period 5.7.2007 to 4.7.2012 (5 years). It appears that subsequently in the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority dated 11.9.2007, a decision being Agenda no.2, was taken whereby referring to a communication, as contained in memo no. 3057, dated 4.7.2-007, it was decided that all permits issued in respect of small buses on long route or inter regional route should be cancelled. It may be noted that in the said order it is clearly noted that the said communication had not yet been received in the office of the Regional Transport Authority nor was it available on record still the authority proceeded on basis of that and cancelled the permit, which had already been issued. Before doing this they did not think it proper to issue notice to the petitioner , who has already plying his bus on the strength of the said permit. Petitioner has challenged the said action on the ground that permit under the Motor Vehicle Act is a valuable right giving licence to carry on his trade. Such a licence cannot be cancelled except on ground of violation of terms or in any view of the 2 matter without hearing. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State, in which it is stated that the Regional Transport Authority having came to know of such a direction having been issued by the State, took action to implement the direction. It accordingly cancelled all permits, which had been issued contravening the said condition as stipulated by the State. It is further stated that Rule 80 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules permits alteration of terms and conditions of the permit and that being so, permits were rightly cancelled and no necessity of hearing being given, is there. To this, petitioner submits that the permits were granted much earlier , though issued on 5.7.2007, it is the grant that creates the right ;issuance of permit is mere ministerial formality pursuant to grant. He submits that a reference to the circular of the State Government would show that such a restriction was to be henceforth applied. The circular, no where, provides that permits which have already been issued should be cancelled. He further submits that Rule 80 aforesaid when it authorises alteration of terms of conditions of permit, it pre-supposes that the permit would continue to exist even after alteration and in the process of alteration the permit itself cannot be cancelled. Heard the parties and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. In my view, the writ petition must succeed. In the counter affidavit, as filed ,the only ground for cancelling 3 the permit is the said circular and restrictions have proposed in that circular. It is not in dispute that the permit was granted much prior to the issuance of the circular though it was issued simultaneously. It is not in dispute that when permit was granted for the period of five years, as is provided, there was no such restriction and it was validly granted. Once State took a decision not to allow smaller bus to operate on inter regional route, such a decision could only for prospective effect, for, it cannot be assumed to apply restriction destroying or taking away vested right. State is only laying down a policy but as a consequence of policy where statutory amendments have to be made ,the law is against the presumption of retrospective action. Petitioner committed no fault. Petitioner was duly granted permit and on issuance thereof was operating without demur.Then to cancel the permit on the plea of alteration of condition is not permissible.What is understood by alteration in Rule 80 is not obliteration, for, there is a distinction between obliteration and alteration. In the name of alteration, the very right cannot be obliterated, as has been sought to be done.The policy cannot take away vested right and as such the decision could only have prospective applications. Thus, the decision of the Regional Transport Authority, as impugned, and which effectively cancelled the permit already granted cannot be sustained in law and must be thus quashed and is accordingly quashed. The permit of the petitioner would thus be valid and the petitioner would be entitled to ply his vehicle on basis of the said permit. I, therefore, deem it not proper to decide other issue as to whether before passing such an order petitioner was entitled to be heard or not. 4 The writ petition is thus allowed. singh (Navaniti Pd. Singh)