CHOTANAGPUR MOTOR KAMGAR UNION Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by petitioner for direction on 11th and 12th respondents to remove the Trekker Stand situated on National High Way 33 (for short N.H. 33), Ramgarh -Ranchi Route near the tyre more, Ramgarh or any other suitable place near Bijulia Railway Station. It has also prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing of Memo No. 499 dated

(2.) TH July, 2003 issued by 3rd respondent, Sub -Divisional Officer (for short S.D.O.), Ramgarh, Hazaribagh. 2 According to petitioner, neither S.D.O., Ramgarh, Hazaribagh, nor Cantonment Authority has jurisdiction to declare any place as "bus stand". The Memo No. 499 dated 2nd July, 2003 is contrary to Section 117 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short M.V. Act) read with Rule 191 of the Bihar Motor Vehicle Rule, 1994 (for short 'Rule 1994 ') and Section 61 of the Cantonment Act. 1924. Further, according to petitioner a registered Trade Union, it represented the 10th respondent on 3rd May, 2002 to remove the trekker stand from N.H. 33 near Ramgarh bus stand and also represented to remove public encroachment from N.H. 33 followed by reminder given on 25th March, 2003. It requested the 10th respondent to shift Ramgarh bus stand to new bus stand only after completion of the construction work and other amenities like sanitation, drinking water, shed for passengers ' etc. by Memo No. 265, dated 8th July, 2003. The 10th respondent proposed to shift the Ramgarh bus stand to new bus stand, civil amenities having made available in the said bus stand. Subseqneutly, vide Memo No. 487 dated 16th July, 2003, the 3rd respondent, S.D.O., Ramgarh issued notice for a meeting scheduled on 21st July, 2003. In the said meeting, it was resolved to shift buses of Ramgarh bus stand to new bus stand w.e.f. 1st August, 2003 and further resolved that the stand of trekker will remain in its old place.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that the Regional Transport Authority is only competent to notify bus stand with consultation of the local authority. The S.D.O., Ramgarh has no jurisdiction to notify or shift the bus stand. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Om Gautam V/s. District Magistrate, Mathura, AIR 1987 SC 1339 and the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Yadav V/s. State of Bihar, 1999 3 PLJR 130. In the case of Hari Om Gautam. (supra), the validity of an order dated May 22, 1986 passed by the District Magistrate, Mathura declaring certain plots in the town area as a bus stand was under challenge. The Supreme Court held that a bus stand can only be notified by the Regional Transport Authority having jurisdiction over the area. The power of District Magistrate is confined to the question of determination of parking places and halting places which are not the same as bus stand which can only be notified by the Regional Transport Authority. The Patna High Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Yadav (supra) taking into consideration the relevant provisions, namely, Sections 96 and 117 of the M.V. Act, 1988 and Rules 187, 191 and 214 of the Rule, 1994, gave similar finding and held that the Regional Transport Authority is only competent to designate a bus stand and the District Magistrate is empowered to identify parking zone/places.