(1.) Multiplicity of legislation tends to create jurisdictional penumbra where one is not quite clear whether it is open to him to take an action or whether that particular action lawfully belongs to some other authority. In that circumstance an act done with perfect good intent and in larger public interest may yet fall down on grounds of being unauthorised by law. This is what appears to have happened in this case.
(2.) Having regard to the rapid development of Rajgir as a place of historic, religious and tourist attraction the district administration constructed there a bus stand at an expense of Rs. 27 lakhs. The District Magistrate, Nalanda then issued an order under his memo No. 586, dated 16-9-1998 directing that vehicles carrying passengers or tourists must stop at the designated bus stand and no where else. It was also directed that the vehicles would pay fees at rates prescribed in that order. This order is sought to be challenged by the petitioner who is a passenger bus operator and held a State carriage permit for the route Gaya to Biharshariff via Wazirganj, Hisua, Rajgir for making two trips daily. At the time of the filing of the writ petition on 15-12-1998 the permit was valid upto 8-1-1999.
(3.) From a perusal of the impugned order it appears that the order is in two parts; in the first part the District Magistrate designated a piece of land, describing it in detail by giving plot Nos., khata Nos. and its boundaries on the four sides as the bus stand for Rajgir where alone all the vehicles carrying passengers and tourists must stop. For the purpose of designating the bus stand the District Magistrate invoked the provisions as contained in S. 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 187 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1992. In the second part of the order the District Magistrate prescribed fees, at different rates, realisable from the different kinds of vehicle. For levying fees he purported to exercise the powers under Rule 191(2)(i) of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules.