Guwahati’s diesel city buses can be phased out from Routes 23 and 36 for electric/CNG “Green Routes,” Gauhati High Court rules

The petitioner, an association of Guwahati city-bus owners holding valid stage-carriage permits, challenged the Regional Transport Authority’s decision to designate Routes 23 and 36 as “Green Routes” and phase out diesel-operated buses from those routes with effect from 01.01.2026.

The decision was stated to implement a Cabinet policy dated 20.08.2021 aimed at making Guwahati free from carbon emissions.

Earlier, a notice dated 28.12.2023 directing the removal of 200 city buses had been stayed in WP(C)/550/2024 for want of prior opportunity; that writ petition was subsequently withdrawn with liberty.

Thereafter, individual notices dated 21.11.2025 offered permit holders the option either to convert their buses to CNG/electric operation or to shift to one of ten alternative routes.

The petitioner contended that the RTA lacked jurisdiction to create Green Routes or effectively displace buses having subsisting permits without cancellation or lawful variation of those permits.

The State maintained that the action was a policy implementation and a permissible variation of permit conditions under Section 72(2)(xxii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

1. Whether the RTA had jurisdiction to implement the State’s policy of converting Routes 23 and 36 into Green Routes and phase out diesel buses from those routes

2. Whether the impugned action required formulation and publication of a scheme under Sections 67, 68, 98–105 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, or could be undertaken as a variation of permit conditions under Section 72(2)(xxii)

3. Whether rerouting or restricting the operation of existing permit holders, after notice and consultation, violated the Motor Vehicles Act, principles of natural justice, or Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution

4. Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief concerning the permit fees and alleged financial loss resulting from the transition

The Court applied Section 72(2)(xxii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which permits the RTA, after the prescribed notice, to vary the conditions of a stage-carriage permit.

Sections 98–105, relating to special provisions for State Transport Undertakings, were held inapplicable because the present dispute did not concern a State Transport Undertaking.

The Court distinguished the provisions concerning statutory transport schemes from a policy-based variation of existing permit conditions.

It applied the principle that executive policy decisions are ordinarily not interfered with unless they are mala fide, arbitrary, unreasonable, patently illegal, or unfair, as stated in Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration, (2001) 3 SCC 635.

It relied on T.B. Ibrahim v. Regional Transport Authority, (1952) 2 SCC 590, for the rule that there is no fundamental right to carry on business at a particular place and that reasonable restrictions imposed in the interest of public convenience are permissible.

The Court also considered Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 395; State of West Bengal v. S.K. Nurul Amin, (2010) 11 SCC 182; Captain Sube Singh v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (2004) 6 SCC 440; and Manik Chandra Das v. State of Assam, AIR 1973 Gau 1, but held them distinguishable or inapplicable on the facts.

The Court held that the RTA’s resolutions did not represent an independent creation of a new transport policy; they were consequential measures implementing the State Cabinet’s policy of reducing carbon emissions in Guwahati.

Consequently, the challenge based on lack of competence failed.

The Court rejected the argument that an uncommunicated Cabinet decision could not be acted upon, holding that the policy was followed by departmental deliberations and subsequent RTA resolutions in which stakeholders, including representatives of the petitioner, participated.

Sections 98–105 were held irrelevant because they apply to State Transport Undertakings, whereas the present action concerned private permit holders and variation of permit conditions.

The Court further found that the notices dated 21.11.2025, offering alternative routes and the option of conversion to CNG or electric vehicles, constituted compliance with the notice requirement under Section 72(2)(xxii).

The decision in S.K. Nurul Amin was distinguished because it concerned a different statutory provision and the impermissible substitution of one route for another, whereas the present case involved variation of permit conditions under Section 72(2)(xxii).

Natural justice was also found satisfied because the matter had been discussed progressively in RTA meetings and the petitioner’s representatives had participated in those deliberations.

The Court held that environmental and public-convenience considerations justified the restriction and that Article 19(1)(g) did not confer a right to operate diesel buses on a particular route indefinitely.

The challenge to the Green Route policy, rerouting directions, and phase-out of diesel buses was rejected.

The issue concerning permit fees was left open; the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum if it remained aggrieved after the authorities considered that issue.

Costs were made easy.