AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Rajendran, J.—This writ petition has been filed by an association challenging the proceedings of the second Respondent in Ref. Na. Ka.
No. 46294-n2-2009 dated 05.10.2010 and to direct the third Respondent to en-route all the town buses, mini buses and mofussil buses to start
and halt only from the new bus-stand at Rajapalayam.
According to the Petitioner, the old bus stand is situated at Rajapalayam. Due to heavy congestion in traffic, the Government thought it fitto build
a new bus stand in Pudupalayam Vilage at Tenkasi Road which is about three kilometers away from the old bus stand and necessary approval was
granted under Rule 245 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules for opening of the new bus stand. In the new bus stand, more than sixty shops
were built up with proper amenities and the shops were auctioned and the members participated and they were successful bidders in the auction
also. They would only contend that at the time of auctioning, they were made to understand that all mofussil buses would start only from the new
bus stand. In fact, there was a public meeting and resolution was passed even as early as 20.09.2008. According to the Petitioners, only because
of the decision taken in the public meeting and assurance given by the authorities of Virudhunagar Municipality to operate the new bus stand fully
as per the unanimous decision taken on 20.09.2008, the members of the Petitioner association came forward to take the shops on lease for their
commercial ventures. The members, apart from paying the lease amount, have also invested huge amount for putting up the shops and invested
money in starting the business. Though there was a proposal to change the old bus stand as vegetable market, suddenly, the District Collector,
Virudhunagar, made a public announcement that all the town buses including private buses which were coming from Tenkasi Road will go to the
old bus stand straightaway and then go to the respective places in the same road. In effect, all the town buses coming from Tenkasi Road will not
come to the new bus stand. According to the Petitioner, if this is allowed, as more than 60% of the town buses are coming only from the Tenkasi
Road, the number of buses coming into the bus stand will be reduced and thereby, their business also would be affected. They would further
contend that this fact was not at all intimated to the Petitioner association or their members. But, only in the public notice in the newspaper, it was
made by the District Collector.
In view of the sudden announcement made by the District Collector, the Petitioner association earlier filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 13470 of
2010 fora mandamus forbearing the District Collector from altering the start, stop and halt place of all town buses plying from Thiyaga Semmal
P.S. Kumara Amy Raja statue, Rajapalayam new bus stand to any other places including old bus-stand and consequently directing the third
Respondent to en-route all the town buses start, stop and halt place from the new bus stand, Rajapalayam. They would only contend that the
District Collector has no authority to pass order either locating or altering the bus stand. As per Rule 245 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules,
the District Collector has no power to make public announcement changing the halting, stopping and starting places of all town and mofussilbuses.
But, the said writ petition was dismissed. When the Respondent produced a copy of the order dated 05.10.2010 and 06.10.2010, the Regional
Transport Authority, Virudhunagar, renewed the approval earlier granted to the bus stand for a period of three years from 06.10.2010 to
05.10.2013. They have also produced the proceedings of a meeting convened on 03.10.2010 in the presence of the Minister and the proceedings
of the District Collector dated 05.10.2010 whereby a direction was given that all the town buses from Tenkasi Road will go straightaway to the
old bus stand. But, it is also stated that in respect of other buses, the original order remains untouched. Pursuant to the production of the order, the
earlier writ petition was dismissed. Hence, the Petitioner association has come forward with the present writ petition challenging the order of the
District Collector dated 05.10.2010 permitting the renewal of the bus stand permit for a period of three years.
The second Respondent, the Regional Transport Authority, has filed a detailed counter. Though originally, the new bus stand was started, it was
not decided to start all the buses from the new bus stand. The severe hardship experienced by the general public was taken into consideration as
various representations were made by public including Hospital since many of the institutions were only situated near the old bus stand. Further, the
travelling public who alight at the new bus stand have to travel further to reach by another town bus or any other mode. Therefore, a meeting was
convened in the presence of the Hon''ble Minister on 05.10.2010 and in the said meeting, it was decided to make a slight alteration in halt and
departures of town buses as follows:
All the buses coming from Tenkasi Road to Rajapalayam should pass through PAC Ramasamy Raja Statue, PSK Park, Gandhi statue,
Government Hospital and reach old bus stand and take departure from there and return back on the same route. Regarding other buses, there is
no alternation in the course of route.
The Regional Transport Authority''s order was given wide publicity and published in newspapers. The members of the association and the public at
large had knowledge about the same. Therefore, there is no question of sending any individual notice to the members of the association. Originally,
they have filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 13470 of 2010, but, the same was dismissed by this Court on merits. In fact, in the said order, an earlier
order of the Division Bench of this Court in respect of Virudhunagar bus stand was referred to. Therefore, the present writ petition, on the very
same ground, by the very same Petitioner, is not maintainable. They would also contend that the approval of the old bus stand was renewed by the
second and third Respondents on 05.10.2010for a period of three years. Without filing an appeal as against the earlier order of dismissal, the
present writ petition has been filed and hence, the same is not at all maintainable.
Further, they would contend that the impugned order is passed as per the powers vested under Rule 245 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles
Rules. They would also contend that the District Collector is the Regional Transport Authority and therefore, the order passed by the Regional
Transport Authority is in conformity with Rule 245 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules. Furthermore, the local administration is empowered
to provide separate bus stand for town and mofussil buses in public interest as per proviso to Rule 245(1) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1989. The paramount importance is only convenience of the general public and therefore, the order is fair and correct. Hence, they would
pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
The fourth Respondent, the Commissioner of Rajapalayam Municipality, has filed a separate counter reiterating the stand taken by the second
Respondent and also brought to the notice of this Court that even in the Peace Committee Meeting held on 03.10.2010, it was decided that buses
coming from Tenkasi Road only go to the old bus stand, whereas, the mofussil buses would still continue to operate from the new bus stand.
Therefore, the Petitioner cannot have any grievance at all and further, the dismissal of the earlier writ petition will definitely have a bearing in the
present writ petition.
Heard both parties.
The short point for consideration in this writ petition is that the Petitioner is an association representing the traders who have taken the shops
built in the new bus stand on lease seeking to challenge the order of the Regional Transport Authority in establishing a separate bus stand or
allowing the old bus stand to continue insofar as it relates to the town buses are concerned. The only grievance meted out by the Petitioner
association is that if the town buses are not allowed to enter into the new bus stand, the buses coming into the bus stand would be reduced and
thereby, the income to the leaseholders of the shops in the bus stand will also be reduced. They would also further contend that only because they
were made to understand that both the mofussil as well as town buses would start from the new bus stand, they ventured to take the shops on
lease and now, there is a see-saw change whereby only the mofussil buses are being allowed. Therefore, they have come forward with this writ
petition.
At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the Petitioner filed a writ petition earlier for a similar relief in a different fashion seeking to injunct
the second Respondent from altering the start, stop and halt place of all town buses plying from Thiyaga Semmal P.S. Kumara Amy Raja
statue,Rajapalayam New Bus Stand to any other places including old bus stand and consequently, directing the third Respondent to en-route all
the town buses start, stop and halt place from the new bus stand, Rajapalayam. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 15.12.2010
with the following observations:
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Section 245 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1988 authorise only the Regional
Transport Authority to pass orders to start/halt the buses, but no order is passed by the Regional Transport Authority to that effect till date and
therefore, the Petitioner association has filed this writ petition.
The learned Counsel for the Respondents produced a copy of the order passed by the District Collector, who is the Regional Transport
Authority, dated 05.10.2010 permitting the buses coming from Tenkasi route to Rajapalayam town to go through the PAC Ramasamyraja statute,
PSK Park, Gandhi Statute, Government Hospital via Rajapalayam old bus stand and as per the schedule time, the buses shall be operated from
the old bus stand. Insofar as other buses are concerned, there is no change. The said direction is given effect to from 06.10.2010 onwards.
In the light of the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, which is in compliance with Rule 245 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1988 and having regard to the fact that in a similar issue a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD). No. 2331 of 2009, by order dated
08.09.2010 uphold the decision taken insofar as the Virudhunagar bus stand is concerned, no case is made out by the Petitioner to pass any order
as prayed for in the writ petition.
The writ petition is dismissed. However, if the Petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, dated
05.10.2010, it is open to them to challenge the same in a separate proceeding before the appropriate authority. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
From a reading of the above order, it is very clear that the impugned order is passed by the Regional Transport Authority, who is the District
Collector. In this case, it is further made clear that as per Rule 245 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, the Regional Transport Authority has
power to issue necessary direction in respect of bus stand. In fact, the earlier writ petition was dismissed on the ground that in a similar writ
petition, a Division Bench of this Court has taken a view that ultimately, the Court is concerned only with the interest of the traveling public.
Further, it is also held that when the old bus stand is not yet closed, Rule 245 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules clearly states that there can
be more than one bus stand for the use of the general public. Citing the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, made in W.P. No. 2331 of
2009, this Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Petitioner association earlier. Unfortunately, the Petitioner association has not filed any
appeal as against the dismissal of the earlier writ petition. In fact, the present writ petition is nothing but for an identical prayer couched in a
different form, of course, alleging to quash the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority. Therefore, the present writ petition, as such, is not
maintainable. Even if it is taken into consideration that the Petitioner has not made out any ground at all in the affidavit, they have only stated that
because of the passing of the impugned order, the income to the members of the Petitioner association would be reduced. As per the order of the
Division Bench of this Court referred to above, the paramount importance is given only to the public at large whose convenience is to be taken into
consideration. Here, the order only states the modification insofar as it relates to the town buses and the mofussil buses still continue to be operated
from the new bus stand. Further, Rule 245(d) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules empowers the Regional Transport Authority to notify the
stand as a public stand for a particular class of public service vehicles for which the scheme was approved and under Clause (e), the local authority
may apply to the Regional Transport Authority for approval of the use of that stand for the purpose of picking up or setting down passengers of
public service vehicles and the order approving the use of the public stand with or without modification shall remain in force for three years or such
shorter period and Clause (h) also specifies the Regional Transport Authority may notify separate stand for stage carriage services or contract
carriage services and under Clause (i), it is stated that when a public stand within the limits of a local authority has been notified by the Regional
Transport Authority, any public service vehicle of that class for which the stand is intended shall make use of that stand for purposes of stationing
the vehicle for picking up or setting down passengers. Therefore, the Rule specifically says that the Regional Transport Authority, in accordance
with the necessity or need of the public and the convenience, can notify different areas for different buses. In this case, the local public request has
been considered and the authority has duly passed orders in accordance with law. The Petitioner is not able to pin point any infirmity in the
impugned order. Even otherwise, the Petitioner has not given any reason as to how the Petitioners are affected and no individual has come forward
with the details and nothing has been mentioned in the affidavit and on this score also, the writ petition is not maintainable.
At the time of argument, the Petitioner produced a copy of the communication issued by the Commissioner of Rajapalayam Municipality to the
Regional Transport Authority, Srivilliputhur, stating that the request of the Petitioner for operating the town buses also from the new bus stand may
be re-considered. Therefore, he would contend that it is still open for the authority to consider. But, it is always for the authority to decide the
matter regarding the feasibility and necessity for the passengers. Accordingly, the Petitioner cannot, as such, maintain this writ petition.
In support of his contention that if a statutory authority has been vested with jurisdiction, he has to exercise it according to its own discretion
and if the discretion is exercised under the direction or in compliance with some higher authority''s instruction, then it will be a case of failure to
exercise discretion altogether, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner wanted to rely upon paragraph 11 of the decision reported in
Anirudhsinhji Jadeja and another Vs. State of Gujarat, which reads as follows:
The case against the Appellants originally was registered on 19.03.1995 under the Arms Act. The DSP did not give any prior approval on his
own to record any information about the commission of an offence under TADA. On the contrary, he made a report to the Additional Chief
Secretary and asked for permission to proceed under TADA. Why? Was it because he was reluctant to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by the
provision of Section 20-A(1)? This is a case of power conferred upon one authority being really exercised by another. If a statutory authority has
been vested with jurisdiction, he has to exercise it according to its own discretion. If the discretion is exercised under the direction or in compliance
with some higher authority''s instruction, then it will be a case of failure to exercise discretion altogether. In other words, the discretion vested in the
DSP in this case by Section 20-A(1) was not exercised by the DSP at all.
Unfortunately, the proposition as tried to be interpreted by the Petitioner counsel is not correct. The Regional Transport Authority is the District
Collector. The District Collector, in his capacity as the Regional Transport Authority, has passed the order. Therefore, it is not the case that the
order has been passed by the District Collector. Here, this order has been passed by the Regional Transport Authority. Therefore, the ruling cited
supra by the Petitioners, will not, in any way, be helpful to them.
In any view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the second Respondent which is impugned in
this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.