AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.K. Mishra, J.—Whether the Secretary, Regional Sub-Divisional Private Bus Owners'' Association, Athagarh, opposite party no. 6, in W.P. (C) No. 8667/2011 should be directed to park their Buses in the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation(OSRTC) Bus Stand, which has been leased to the petitioner is the question that arises in these bunch of cases. In CONTC. No. 2172/2011, the petitioner prays that the opposite party be punished for violation of the order passed by this Court on 10.5.2011 in W.P.(C) No. 8667/ 2011 & Misc. Case No. 5518/ 2011.
In W.P.(C) No. 8667/2011, the petitioner prays that the mandamus be issued to the opposite parties to remove or demolish the unauthorized Bus Stand constructed by opposite party no. 6 on P.W.D. road and public road and to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the resolution/order of the NAC declaring the second temporary Bus Stand in Athagarh. He also prays that opposite party no. 4, i.e. the Commissioner S.T.A., to take stringent action canceling or withdrawing the route permits of the Bus operators, who operate their Buses via Athagarh and prevent opposite party no. 6 to make any obstruction in entering the Buses into the OSRTC Bus Stand in collecting the parking fees.
W.P.(C) No. 4809/2011 has been filed by the same petitioner, who had taken the Bus Stand on lease from the OSRTC. He has filed this writ petition almost with similar prayer. He prays that mandamus be issued directing the opposite parties 1 to 5 to restrain opposite party no. 6 for interference in operation of the Bus Stand and collection of parking fees in Athagarh Bus Stand and direct the opposite party nos. 4 and 5 to see the smooth entry of private Buses into the Athagarh Bus Stand and stop the parking of the said Buses on public road. Further direction has been sought against opposite party no. 4 not to open a new Bus Stand or permit the same in Athagarh deviating the law and direct opposite party no. 5 to check the illegal activities of opposite party no. 6.
W.P.(C) No. 7390/2011 is in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, wherein the same prayer has been made by the petitioners. They seek direction to opposite party nos. 1 to 4 to restrain opposite party no. 5 from creating hindrances and obstructions in entering the private Buses to OSRTC Bus Stand, Athagarh and in collecting the parking fees and direct the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 to take actions against opposite party no. 5, who creates obstructions of entrance of Buses into the Bus Stand direct the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 to withdraw or cancel the road permits of the Buses or Bus owners who violate the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
CONTC. No. 1906/2012 has been filed against the opposite parties namely, the Inspector-in-Charge, Athagarh Police Station and the Secretary of Regional Sub-Divisional Private Bus Owners'' Association, Athagarh for violation of the order passed by this Court on 03.7.2012 in W.P.(C) No. 7390/2011.
The OSRTC has been allotted Ac. 1.600 decs. of land on lease by the Government of Orissa in the year 1981 for 99 years in Athagarh Town to open the Bus Stand. After execution of the lease deed the mutation has been carried out. The OSRTC has constructed the Bus Stand and was operating the same. The basic facilities required in a Bus Stand are also provided. In order to raise its revenue and for smooth running and management of the Bus Stand, the said Bus Stand was allotted in favour of Athagarh N.A.C. on execution of the agreement with certain terms and conditions for maintenance of the Bus Stand and collection of parking fees from the Bus Owners. Since the NAC did not pay any collected parking fees to opposite party no. 5 and non-execution of renewal agreement, the allotment was cancelled on 9.12.2010.
The OSRTC on 10.12.2010 invited open tenders for license of OSRTC Land/Bus Stand, Athagarh for collection of parking fees from Private Buses for 36 months in question. In pursuance of such tender, the petitioner participated in the Tender process on payment of required fees and after due negotiation agreed to pay monthly rent @ Rs. 6,100/-per month for such collection of parking fees from vehicles inside the Bus Stand and agreed to undertake sanitation work in the Bus Stand by engaging his own personnels. The allotment order was issued on 15.1.2011.
In pursuance of the allotment order in favor of the petitioner an agreement was entered into between the OSRTC and the petitioner to license the said Bus Stand for collection of parking fees from private Buses through selected agents. The petitioner has already deposited the security amount of Rs. 50,000/- and six months advance of Rs. 36,000/- with the OSRTC at the time of execution of the agreement. It is stipulated in the agreement that the petitioner will collect Rs. 15/-only per Bus per day excluding OSRTC vehicles and other Government vehicles.
Opposite party no. 5(OSRTC) wrote a letter on 01.2.2011 to the District Transport Manager (A), OSRTC, Cuttack, to handover physical possession of Athagarh Bus Stand and Station Office to the petitioner immediately and intimate the same to him. Opposite party no. 5 through its officials handed over the physical possession of Athagarh Bus Stand to the petitioner and the petitioner operated the Bus Stand w.e.f. 10.2.2011 and started collecting parking fees from private buses parked in the said Bus Stand. While the petitioner was operating his business and collecting parking fees peacefully in the said Bus Stand, opposite party no. 6 with his henchmen, antisocials and hired goondas started making disturbances relating to the entry of Buses inside the Bus Stand and interfered in the parking collections. Opposite party no. 6 obstructed the private Buses to enter into the Bus stand and compelled them not to pay the parking fees. It is pleaded that the actions of opposite party no. 6 are wrong, illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. Thus, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing various applications to issue a mandamus to the authorities to enforce parking of Buses inside the OSRTC Bus Stand.
The Sub-Collector, Athagarh, opposite party no. 2, has filed a counter affidavit in this case. Opposite party no. 2 pleads that the petitioner started collection of parking fees from buses that entered inside the said bus stand after the bus stand was handed over to him by OSRTC. However, it is further pleaded that only two Buses are entering inside the said Bus Stand and other Buses are not entering into the said Bus Stand, which is alleged to have been decided in their Association Meeting. No information has been received by opposite party no. 2 regarding any obstruction to the private Buses that are entering into the said Bus Stand. The Inspector-in-charge, Athagarh Police Station has been directed to ensure that no one creates any obstruction to the buses entering into the said Bus Stand. The said Inspector-in-charge has also registered a F.I.R. on the submission of the petitioner and is investigating the case.
Opposite party no. 2 further pleads that the Buses are not being parked on public road for which the road is being unnecessarily blocked and overcrowded. Its further pleaded that at present the Buses are parked in an open place near the OSRTC Bus Stand, which is half portion of Taxi Stand, Athagarh, and not on public road. Opposite party no. 2 denies that opposite party no. 6 has influenced the officials and therefore they have remained silent and inactive. Such allegations are unfounded and therefore denied. Opposite party no. 2 took special interest in resolving the dispute between the petitioner and the Bus Owners'' Association. Petitioner''s submission that the dispute was received by opposite party no. 2. However, without waiting for the submission of the petitioner and immediately after receiving information regarding the dispute of the Bus Stand from local sources, opposite party no. 2 has called for a meeting on 14.2.2011 for amicable settlement of the dispute through discussion. However, due to the attitude of the petitioner, the dispute could not be resolved. Again for amicable settlement of the dispute through mediation, meetings were called on 9.3.2011 and 22.3.2011. On both the occasions the petitioner remained absent. Opposite party no. 2 also asked for a clarification from the RTO, Cuttack regarding the Bus Stand dispute.
Local public and College Students Union made representation to opposite party no. 2. The matter was looked into the by opposite party no. 2. As per decision of the Notified Area Council, Athagarh, a temporary Bus Stand has been declared and Buses are parked in an open place near the OSRTC Bus Stand, which is a portion of existing taxi stand of Athagarh. The Inspector-in-charge has been directed to ensure that law and order is maintained, authorities of NAC, Athagarh have also been directed to provide basic facilities to the passengers like drinking water, sanitation, rest shed etc. Further, on the petition of local public, one case u/s 133 of Cr. P.C. has also initiated in the court of opposite party no. 2. Opposite party no. 2 further pleads that he is taking sincere steps to resolve the conflict because it is not the issue of any two persons, rather interest of people of Athagarh is hampered and they are suffering a lot.
Other opposite parties have also filed their counter affidavits. Similar facts as pleaded by opposite party no. 2 have been pleaded by them. Additionally it is contended by the opposite parties that the writ petition is not maintainable and the authorities cannot be directed to force opposite party no. 6 to park the Buses of its member in the OSRTC Bus Stand as there is an alternative Bus Stand is available to them.
Thus, from the above pleadings it is clear that the OSRTC Bus Stand has been taken on lease by the petitioner on the expectation that all the private Buses will be parked in that Bus Stand and he shall collect parking fees from each. There is no pleading anywhere in the writ petition that prior to his taking lease, the private Buses were being parked inside the OSRTC Bus Stand and, therefore, he has reasonable expectation that all the buses shall continue to park inside the OSRTC Bus Stand. It is in essence that the dispute is between the petitioner and Private Bus Owners'' Association. The question is whether the writ of mandamus can be issued against the officials to compel opposite party no. 6 to use the OSRTC Bus Stand for the purpose of parking. In fact, it is seen from the records and also not disputed that a portion of the Taxi Stand has been earmarked for parking of private Buses and it has been provided with basic facilities to the passengers like drinking water, sanitation, rest shed etc.
In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that a mandamus cannot be issued against the opposite party officials to compel opposite party no. 6 to park their Buses inside the Bus Stand leased to the petitioner. It may be noted here that the Buses operated by the private owners have no nexus with the OSRTC. The OSRTC itself runs several Buses and they have properties in almost all the districts where they park their vehicles. Such Bus Stands are used exclusively by the OSRTC. So, it does not follow necessarily that all the Buses that pass through Athagarh and should enter inside the OSRTC Bus Stand and pay fees to the licensee, i.e. the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petitions are devoid of any merit.
CONTC. NO. 2172/2011 has been filed on the ground that this Court had passed an order to the effect that Buses should park inside the OSRTC Bus Stand and the petitioner should collect rent from the Bus owners. However, It is seen that as per order dated 10.5.2011, this Court has passed the following interim order:-
As an interim measure, we direct that the Commissioner, State Transport Authority-O.P. 3, shall ensure that the stage carriage permit holder buses shall not pick up the passengers and leave the passengers from the points save and except the points specified in their permit.
Thus, this being the situation, no contempt shall lie against the Commissioner, State Transport Authority.
As far as CONTC. NO. 1906/2012 is concerned, an interim direction was given by this Court which reads as follows:-
This PIL has been filed by the residents of Athagarh bringing allegation against the Private Bus Owners'' Association, Athagarh, opposite party no. 4, in parking their Buses on the road adjacent to the OSRTC Bus Stand thereby free movement of the public in that road is being affected. Hence, we direct opposite party no. 4 to park their vehicles in the OSRTC Bus Stand on paying usual parking charges that will be charged by the lessee/licensee. If any stage carriage motor vehicles are parked on the road adjacent to the OSRTC Bus Stand, the jurisdictional Police is directed to register cases and take action against them in accordance with law. If they repeat the same in parking their vehicles on the road, necessary seizure of the vehicles shall be done to see that they abide the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the local Municipal law.
However, from the discussions made in the precedent paragraph, it is clear that the stage carriage motor vehicles are being parked in a area earmarked for parking of Buses. They are not being parked on the public road or causing any inconvenience to the public at large. That being the case, the petitioner has not made out a case of contempt against the opposite party, i.e. the Inspector-in-charge of Athagarh Police Station and opposite party no. 6. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition is without merit.
As far as the PIL, i.e. W.P.(C) No. 7390/2011 is concerned, we are of the opinion that directions should be given to the Notified Area Council and the authorities to fix an appropriate parking fee per day per Bus for the purpose of collecting the same from the private Bus owners, who are using the Bus stop (a part of the Taxi Stand) and collect the same from the Bus owners for using the said parking space for commercial activity. Therefore, it is in the larger interest of public they should pay the legitimate dues to the Notified Area Council for parking the buses.
On the basis of the aforesaid discussions, all the writ petitions and the related Misc. Cases, except W.P.(C) No. 7390 of 2011, are devoid of any merit and the same are dismissed. W.P.(C) No. 7390 of 2011 is disposed of with the observations given in the preceding paragraph. Both the Contempt Petitions are devoid of any merit and the same are dropped.