Secretary cannot unilaterally modify a sanctioned permit timetable contrary to its terms.

The petitioners held permanent inter-State stage carriage permits issued by the State Transport Authority, Bihar, valid from 30 August 2018 to 29 August 2023.

Amitabh’s Permit No. 22/2018 covered buses operating on the Patna–Siliguri route via Bakhtiyarpur and Purnea, while Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari’s Permit No. 23/2018 covered buses operating on the Muzaffarpur–Siliguri route.

The State Transport Authority had approved the relevant proposed timetables in its meeting held on 24 July 2018, with the proceedings signed on 25 July 2018.

Subsequently, the Secretary, State Transport Authority, independently issued modified timetables, curtailing the arrival and departure timings at notified bus stands, allegedly without an order of the Authority or any request from the petitioners.

The petitioners challenged the modified timetables, marked as Annexure-4, and sought restoration of the proposed timetables approved by the State Transport Authority.

During the hearing, both parties submitted that the controversy was covered by the Patna High Court’s decision in Gopal Krishna Tiwary v. The State of Bihar & Ors., C.W.J.C. No. 22599 of 2018, decided on 7 October 2025.

Whether the Secretary, State Transport Authority, could independently modify the timetables approved by the State Transport Authority, without a further order of the Authority or a request from the permit-holders?

Whether the modified timetables issued as Annexure-4 were legally sustainable when they curtailed the timings attached to the petitioners’ stage carriage permits?

Whether the writ petitions were required to be disposed of in accordance with the binding or applicable reasoning in Gopal Krishna Tiwary?

The Court applied the principle that a modified timetable issued by the Secretary, State Transport Authority, cannot stand where it is contrary to the terms of the stage carriage permit and the applicable legal framework, particularly when the competent transport authority has already approved the relevant permit conditions and timetable.

The Court relied on Gopal Krishna Tiwary v. The State of Bihar & Ors., C.W.J.C. No. 22599 of 2018, decided on 7 October 2025, where an analogous modified timetable was held unsustainable because it was contrary to the permit terms and relevant legal provisions.

No specific statutory provision was identified or independently discussed in the present judgment.

The Court found that the issues in both petitions were identical to those adjudicated in Gopal Krishna Tiwary.

In that precedent, the Court held that the Secretary’s modified timetable was not sustainable because it conflicted with the terms of the permit and the applicable legal provisions, and quashed the impugned timetable.

Applying that reasoning, the Court accepted the parties’ submission that the present petitions were governed by the same principle.

Since the impugned Annexure-4 timetables had allegedly curtailed the timings approved in respect of the petitioners’ permits, and no separate basis for distinguishing the present cases was advanced, the Court treated the modified timetables as legally unsustainable.

It quashed and set aside Annexure-4—the modified timetable issued in respect of each petitioner’s stage carriage permit.

Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.