The Gauhati High Court has upheld the decision to convert Guwahati’s Routes 23 and 36 into ‘Green Routes’ and phase out diesel-operated city buses from the two routes, dismissing writ petitions filed by the Metropolitan Transport Association, Guwahati.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi held that the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Kamrup, had acted pursuant to a Cabinet decision dated August 20, 2021, aimed at making Guwahati free from carbon emissions. The Court rejected the petitioners’ contention that the RTA lacked jurisdiction to take the decision, holding that the subsequent RTA resolutions were consequential to the State Government’s policy decision.
The petitioners had challenged the RTA’s decision to withdraw diesel buses from Routes 23 and 36 and reroute existing operators. They argued that the buses had valid permits and that the RTA could not prevent their operation on the permitted routes or compel operators to shift to other routes without following the statutory procedure under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The State contended that the Green Route policy was introduced as part of the Government’s effort to reduce carbon emissions and that bus operators had been given two alternatives: convert their vehicles to CNG/electric vehicles or shift to one of 10 alternative routes. The State informed the Court that around 100 of more than 150 buses had shifted to alternative routes.
The Court held that the petitioners’ reliance on Sections 98 to 105 of the Motor Vehicles Act was misplaced, as those provisions form part of Chapter VI dealing with special provisions relating to State Transport Undertakings and were therefore not applicable to the present case.
On the challenge to the Cabinet decision, the Court held that the absence of a separate communication of the 2021 Cabinet decision did not invalidate the policy. It noted that the policy had subsequently been acted upon through meetings involving the Assam State Transport Corporation, Transport Department and RTA, with participation of stakeholders including representatives of the petitioner association.
The Court also rejected the plea of violation of natural justice, observing that individual notices were not required before taking a policy decision. It noted that representatives of the bus owners had participated in RTA meetings and that the transition to Green Routes had been discussed over a period of time.
On the modification of permits, the Court relied on Section 72(2)(xxii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, holding that the RTA could vary permit conditions upon giving the prescribed notice. It distinguished the judgment in State of West Bengal v. S.K. Nurul Amin, (2010) 11 SCC 182 , relied upon by the petitioners, on the basis that it concerned a different statutory provision.
The Court further noted that a Division Bench, while disposing of an earlier writ appeal in December 2025, had observed that the RTA’s decision could amount to variation of permit conditions rather than implementation of a new transport scheme. The Division Bench had also rejected the allegation that the Green Routes were intended exclusively for State-operated buses, noting that the routes were open to CNG and electric buses.
Rejecting the challenge under Article 19(1)(g), the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in T.B. Ibrahim v. Regional Transport Authority, (1952) 2 SCC 590 to hold that there is no fundamental right to carry on business at a particular place, and that reasonable restrictions may be imposed in the interest of public convenience where the authority has the power to do so.
The Court accordingly dismissed both writ petitions. It left open the petitioners’ grievance concerning the permit fee, observing that they would be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum if the issue remained unresolved.
