High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 3168/2008 PRESENT HON’BLE MR JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN J U D G M E N T AND O R D E R (ORAL) All these writ petitions raise common grievance regarding shifting of parking st ands of commercial vehicles from within Silchar town area to outside town area. Accordingly, the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of b y this common order. 2. At the outset, it may be pointed out that in view of order dated 05-02-2013 passed by the Hon’ble Bench (Bench-IV) dealing with the matter, all the cases were placed before this Bench. Accordingly and as agreed to by the l
Facts
earned Counsel for the parties, the cases were taken up for hearing. 3. petitioners in their respective writ petitions may be necessary. A brief reference to the facts of the cases as projected by the Case of the petitioners WP(C) No.3168 / 2008 4. rcial vehicles of Barak Valley. Petitioner No.2 is its Secretary. Petitioner No.1 is a registered association of all private comme 5. Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Transport Department issued a notification dated 15-07-2008 regarding shifting of operati on of all inter- state, inter-district and long distance bus services to Inte r State Bus Terminus (ISBT), Ramnagar, Silchar. It was stated that for the purpo se of easing out traffic congestion in Silchar town, it was necessary and expedi ent in the interest of public service, safety and convenience to start the opera tion of all inter-state, inter-district and long distance bus services from ISB T, Ramnagar, Silchar w.e.f. 16-07-2008. Accordingly, exercising power as conferr ed by Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the authority decided to rest rict the entry of all such buses into Silchar town from the midnight of 15-07-20 08 and declared that all such buses would henceforth operate from their respect ive destinations directly to and from ISBT, Ramnagar, Silchar. It was made clear that entry of all buses except city buses, school buses, staff buses of public sector undertakings and buses brought for repair would not be allowed to enter S ilchar town. 6. Petitioners have challenged this notification on the ground that it was an unwise and impractical decision. Infrastructure and amenities were no t ready in the ISBT. ISBT point is approachable only through a single road which will further compound the problem of traffic congestion. It will cause harassme nt to the travelling public. W.P.(C) No.3020/2012 Petitioner No.1 is the Cachar Transport Vehicle Owners Associati 7. on, a registered society of owners of city buses and other private buses caterin g to the need of public transport in the district of Cachar. Petitioner No.2, wh o is the Secretary of petitioner No.1 in W.P.(C) No.3168/2008, is also the Secre tary of petitioner No.1 in this case. 8. According to the petitioners, Government of Assam by order dated 09-10-1977 allowed the petitioner No.1 to use a vacant plot of Government land at Trunk Road, Silchar, which was marshy. Petitioner No.1 developed the land by earth filling and by making constructions for ticket counter etc. In the year 19 85, the said plot of land measuring 3 bighas 15 kathas and 12 chattaks was allot ted to the petitioner No.1 on condition that it should provide employment to loc al unemployed youths. Petitioner No.1 developed the land by constructing boundar y wall on three sides, passenger shed etc. Rooms for tea stall, shops etc. were provided to 48 unemployed youths. The said allotment was ultimately converted to settlement in favour of petitioner No.1 vide order dated 10-01-2006. Petitioner No.1 deposited the premium amount of Rs.22,20,000/-. Thereafter, patta was issu ed in favour of petitioner No.1. Vehicles belonging to members of petitioner No. 1 park their vehicles on the said land, which is used as parking stand. 9. Petitioners have challenged order dated 23-05-2012 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, who is also the Chairman, Regional Transport Autho rity, Cachar, whereby all concerned associations/counters having parking stands within Silchar town were directed to shift their parking stands to outside the t own area within one month. 10. The said order has been challenged on the ground that the same w as issued on a misreading of an order of this Court passed in WP( C) No.546/2012 which permitted shifting of all parking stands from within Silchar town area to outside Silchar town area. It is also contended that since buses belonging to p etitioner No.1 are parked on the patta land of petitioner No.1 and not on the r oad side, the general shifting of parking stands cannot be applied to the parkin g stand of petitioner No.1. W.P.(C) No. 3616/2012 Petitioner is the Silchar Dwarbond Passenger (Small) Motor Owner 11. s Association, a registered society of commercial small vehicle owners of Cachar district. The association members basically ply four categories of vehicles, T ata Sumo, Mahindra Max, Cruiser and Tata Winger. These vehicles ply within the d istrict of Cachar only. 12. Petitioner is aggrieved by the communication of the Additional D istrict Magistrate, Cachar dated 26-07-2012 addressed to all commercial vehicle associations of Silchar to shift their parking stands to ISBT within 30-07-2012. It was stated that it was unanimously resolved to issue necessary notice to al l the associations having parking stands inside Silchar municipal area to shift their stands to outside the municipal area and that ISBT was found as a suitabl e area to shift all the stands. 13. It is contended that the above direction goes beyond the Governm ent notification dated 15-07-2008 which restricted entry of buses only into Silc har town and also on a misreading of the High Court order. It is further contend ed that such en masse shifting will cause harassment to the passengers. W.P.(C) No.3996/2012 14. Petitioner i.e. Silchar Taxi Owner’s Association is a registered society whose members are owners of Ambassador car taxis. Petitioner is aggriev ed by the direction of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Cachar dated 16-08-2012 asking it to shift the parking stand to ISBT with immediate effect. The said decision has been challenged on the ground that the sma 15. ll taxis belonging to the members of the petitioner association cannot be equate d with large commercial vehicles which was the subject matter in WP(C) No.546/20 12, the decision in which case has been made the basis for issuance of the impug ned direction. It is also contended that before issuing the impugned direction, the views of the local authorities were not obtained. W.P.(C) No.4057/2012 16. The petitioner in this case is the State Transport Workers Assoc iation. Petitioner represents the cause of buses operating from the Silchar Assa m State Transport Corporation (ASTC) bus stand under ASTC banner. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 23-05-2012 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, who is also the Chairman of Regional Transport Authority, Cachar directing all a ssociations/counters having parking stands within Silchar town area to shift th eir parking stands from within Silchar town area to outside the town area. 17. Contention of the petitioner is that buses operating under the A STC banner operate from the ASTC parking station at Silchar town which is very s pacious. Such buses should not be bracketed with taxis, sumos and other commerc ial vehicles which do not have parking stands of their own and whose parking on the roads may cause traffic congestion in the town. The orders of this Court dated 5.4.2012 and 18.5.2012 have been misinterpreted to include vehicles which have their own parking stands. W.P.(C) No.393/2013 18. There are eleven petitioners in this case. They are the owners o f passenger buses operating under the banner of Tripura Road Transport Corporat ion (TRTC). They are carrying on the business of passenger transport on the basi s of agreement between TRTC and ASTC. They park their buses on the ASTC parkin g stand. They are aggrieved by the direction of the Additional District Magistra te, Cachar dated 26-07-2012 directing all commercial vehicle associations to shi ft their parking stands to ISBT. 19. Contention of the petitioners is that since their buses are oper ating on the basis of a reciprocal agreement between ASTC and TRTC, they are pa rking their vehicles inside the parking stand of ASTC parking station. It is, th erefore, contended that their buses are in no way responsible for the traffic co ngestion in Silchar town. Stand of the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
39. An association by the name of Tata Sumo Taxi Owners Association, Silc har had moved this Court in WP( C) No.546/2012 challenging a decision of the Di strict Transport Officer for shifting of the taxi stand. Stand taken by the resp ondents in the said writ petition was that a meeting was convened by the Depu ty Commissioner, Cachar on 19.11.2011 for streamlining the traffic and to redu ce traffic congestion within Silchar town area. An unanimous decision was taken
Arguments
20. In W.P.(C) No.3168/2008, respondent No.2 i.e. Commissioner and S ecretary to the Government of Assam, Transport Department has filed affidavit. S tand taken is that under Sections 115 and 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, State Government or any authority authorized by it has the power to determine p arking places and halting stations of motor vehicles for the interest of public safety and convenience. The said power can also be exercised for shifting the ex isting stands in the public interest. It is also stated that because of the incr easing volume of traffic including inter- state buses, which has led to serious traffic congestion in Silchar town, it was decided to construct an ISBT at Ramna gar, Silchar like the ISBT in Guwahati city. It was not possible to construct the said ISBT within the town area due to non-availability of sufficient land. C onstruction of ISBT was completed providing necessary infrastructure and amen ities for the passengers. Accordingly, Government of Assam had issued notific ation dated 15.7.2008 directing shifting of operation of all inter-state, inter- district and long distance bus services to ISBT, Ramnagar, Silchar as per prov ision of Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is further stated that Rule 78 of the Assam Motor Vehicles Rules, 2003 provides for provision for stop pages, parking stands and operating places for public service vehicles. Rule 94 of the said Rules provides for provision for maintenance and management of stop pages, stands and halting places. As per the said Rules, the local authority ha ving jurisdiction over the area shall manage and maintain such stoppages, stands and halting places for public service vehicles. It is the contention of the r espondent No.2 that the impugned decision has been taken in the greater interes t of public safety and convenience. 21. Respondent No.3 i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, in his affidavit has s tated that the parking stand of the Commercial Transport Owners Co-ordination As sociation ( CTVOA) is situated in the heart of Silchar town i.e. on the Trunk R oad in the vicinity of a large number of important establishments. This road is the only means of access to the railway station for the people of North Silchar and constant use of this road by the passenger vehicles of CTVOA results in cont inuous traffic congestion and traffic jam. Therefore, considering the public in terest, decision was taken to shift the passenger carrying buses from CTVOA to I SBT. Government of Assam had taken a decision to construct ISBT at Ramnagar, Silchar alongwith the ISBT at Guwahati. After completion of the construction, th e ISBT at Ramnagar was inaugurated by the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 22.1.2007. It is further stated that the decision to shift the passenger carrying buses an d other vehicles travelling beyond 180 kilometers was taken in a meeting of th e Traffic Advisory Committee held on 22.5.2008 in which representatives of cross sections of the people of Silchar town, including the office bearers of petitio ner No.1, were present. It was a conscious and consensus decision to shift the passenger carrying vehicles from within Silchar town to ISBT in the public inte rest to reduce the increasing traffic congestion in Silchar town. Decision to shift parking stands was taken in the presence of the representatives of all th e vehicle owners associations. No objection was raised to such decision in the m eeting. It is further stated that the only solution to ease out traffic congesti on in Silchar town is to operate all passenger vehicles from ISBT , Ramnagar, Silchar. Similarly, affidavit has been filed by Deputy Commissioner in WP( C) N 22. o.3020/2012. It is stated that extension of transport service by transport assoc iatiosn and providing service to passengers is not related to shifting of the pa rking stands and the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 23.5.2012 is an orde r directing all the associations to shift their parking stands to outside Silch ar town area. In no way the order dated 23.5.2012 restricts the extension of public transport service. The order dated 23.5.2012 was issued to ease the acute traffic congesti on and traffic jam in Silchar town. It is stated that shifting of parking stands to outside Silchar town area has become an absolute necessity as Silchar town i s facing severe traffic congestion. To ease traffic congestion and traffic jam, shifting of parking stands to outside the town area has become indispensible i rrespective of whether parking stands are located on Government land or on priv ate land. Such decision or order has nothing to do with the possession of any la nd by any association. The order dated 23.5.2012 was issued in the greater inter est of the public of Silchar town. 23. har. Stand taken is the same as that of Deputy Commissioner. Affidavit has also been filed by the District Transport Officer, Cac 24. Similar affidavits have been filed in other cases as well. Additiona lly, in WP( C) No. 3616/2012, Deputy Commissioner, Cachar has stated that the p arking stand of the petitioner is located on the trunk road( National Highway 53) encroaching on a part of the national highway creating a great chaos and tra ffic jam throughout the day. Besides, due to illegal parking of 50-60 vehicles a t a time on that portion of the national highway, great inconvenience is caused to the flow of traffic. With the increasing number of vehicles, the problem ha s assumed alarming proportion. Under such circumstances, direction was issued for shifting of petitioner’s parking stand to outside Silchar town area for th e purpose of easing traffic congestion as well as for proper traffic management . It has been clarified that the above direction has no relation to the Gove rnment notification dated 15.7.2008 and was independently taken in view of the problem of traffic co ngestion within Silchar town. District authorities have taken appropriate steps for plying of vehicles from ISBT and have also fixed the fares as per Governmen t rate so that passengers are not charged exorbitant fares. 25. In the affidavit filed by Deputy Commissioner in WP( C) No.3996/2012 , it is stated that the Traffic Control Advisory Board meeting was held 18 year s ago. The situation has changed considerably due to increase in the number of v ehicles and commuters. Parking stands within the town area are causing extreme traffic congestion. 26. In the affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner in WP( C) No.4057/2 012, it is stated that if the ASTC flag station located in the heart of Silchar town is allowed to continue from the existing place, there would be no end to t he heavy traffic jam and chaos in the Silchar Circuit House Road and the surro unding areas. Because of haphazard parking, traffic congestion has become unbear able for the people as well as for the movement of private vehicles, ambulances etc. The ASTC flag station is situated in the busiest area of Silchar town. The ASTC parking lot might have been adequate in the past but with the increasing n umber of buses operating under its banner, it has become wholly inadequate. It is stated that operation of ASTC buses and buses under the ASTC banner from th e flag station inside Silchar town would be detrimental to the interest of the g eneral public. 27. One Sri Sadhan Purkayastha got himself impleaded as Respondent No.6 in WP( C) No.3020/2012. He has filed an affidavit supporting the stand of the peti tioner. According to him, the impugned decision would adversely affect the trave lling public as it will cause great inconvenience to them commuting to and fro from ISBT. Submissions : 28. Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in WP( C) No.3168/2008 submits that though by the impugned notification dated 15.7.200 8, operation of inter-state, inter-district and long distance buses were shifte d from within Silchar town to ISBT at Ramnagar, but district authorities have go ne beyond the said notification by restricting movement of city buses, short di stance buses, tata sumos, taxis and other vehicles, not mentioned in the said no tification. Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP( C) No.30 29. 20/2012 submits that the petitioner is not an unauthorized entity. It has its o wn land which has been used for parking purpose. He submits that the respondent s did not consider the matter in a proper manner. There was non application of m ind and no conscious decision was taken. Submission of Mr. Choudhury finds supp ort from Mr. N.Dhar, learned counsel for the respondent No.6. 30. Mr. G.Uzir, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP( C) No.4057/2012 submits that ASTC has its own spacious parking station at Silchar town where its buses and those operating under its banner are parked and operate from. Such b uses should not be bracketed with taxis and other commercial vehicles which may be responsible for traffic congestion. He has suggested that Government may pre pare a scheme by adopting a holistic approach. 31. Mr. K.K.Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP( C) No.3996/201 2 submits that the impugned decision was taken without hearing the petitioner. There was no consultation by the State Government with the local authority an d, therefore, there is violation of Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Since shifting of parking stands would adversely affect the livelihood of the members of the petitioner association, petitioner should have been heard. Mr. J.Islam, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP( C) No.393/201 32. 3 submits that the vehicles belonging to the petitioners have not caused any tr affic congestion. Referring to the averments in the writ petition, he submits th at vehicles of the petitioners are operating as per agreement with ASTC by usi ng the ASTC flag station. He, however, clearly submits that if all are asked to go outside Silchar town area, petitioners would have no objection to park thei r vehicles outside Silchar town area, but such decision should not be selective . 33. Opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. U. Ra jbongshi, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department submits that the notifi cation dated 15.7.2008 was issued in greater interest of public safety and conv enience. He has referred to the averments made in Misc. case No.2762/2012 filed by District Transport Officer, Cachar to contend that because of haphazard park ing and consequential traffic mis-management , there is constant traffic congest ion in Silchar town leading to a chaotic situation. Prime concern is to remove traffic congestion. Referring to the representation dated 28.5.2012 submitted by the Barak Valley Commercial Vehicle Owners Co-ordination Association to the Dep uty Commissioner, Cachar, he submits that petitioners had themselves assured to shift the parking stands to outside Silchar town area. Therefore, they cannot t urn around now and oppose such decision. He submits that no illegality has bee n committed and no constitutional or legal right of the petitioners have been violated. Therefore, all the writ petitions should be dismissed. 34. Mr. J. Handique, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam adopts the stand taken by Mr. U.Rajbongshi, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department and supports the decision of the district administration to shift the parking stands from in side the town area to outside the town area. 35. Mr. M.Khan, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in WP( C) No.3020/2012 supports the impugned decision. Discussions and conclusions : 36. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been conside red. I have also perused the averments made in the various writ petitions and t he affidavits filed alongwith the documents placed on record. 37. Short point for consideration is whether any decision of this nature to shift the parking stands from within Silchar town area to outside Silchar t own area or asking the various categories of buses to operate from ISBT should be subjected to judicial scrutiny in exercise of power of judicial review. 38. As already noticed above, the problem of traffic congestion in Silc har town has been engaging the attention of the authorities for quite sometime. Demands were raised from time to time for shifting of parking stands from wit hin the town area to outside the town area. Government decision was taken to c onstruct ISBT at Ramnagar,Silchar. It has been stated in the affidavit that nec essary infrastructure and amenities in the ISBT are in place and consequentl y, notification dated 15.7.2008, attention to which has already been drawn, was issued in exercise of power conferred under Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act. A careful reading of Section 115 would indicate that the State Government or any authority authorized by it, if it is satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public safety or convenience, may by notification in the offici al gazette, prohibit or restrict the driving of motor vehicles either genera lly or on a specified road. Reference has also been made to the provisions of Ru les 78 and 94 of the Assam Motor Vehicles Rules, 2003.
Decision
to shift all the parking stands from within the town area to outside the town area. Petitioner in that case had raised a grievance that instead of uniforml y applying the said decision, only the petitioner association had been singled out and only the taxi stand belonging to the petitioner association was sought to be shifted out. This Court by order dated 5.4.2012 disposed of the writ pet ition by passing the following order :- (cid:28) Though, normally the writ Court would be hesitant and reluctant to enter into such question as to where the parking stand should be situated, but keeping in view the stand taken by the respondents in their affidavits, I am of the view that the decision so taken to shift the taxi stands to out-side the to wn area with the sole purpose of easing the traffic congestion within the Silch ar town area should be applied uniformly and not selectively. In view thereof, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the Sta te respondents to shift all the taxi stands from within the Silchar town area to out-side the Silchar town area within a period of 3(three) months from today. (cid:29) 40. Subsequently, on a review petition filed by the petitioners , this Co urt by order dated 18.5.2012 clarified that the words (cid:28)taxi stands (cid:29) should be r ead as (cid:28)parking stands (cid:29). Accordingly, the State respondents were permitted to s hift all the parking stands from within Silchar town area to out-side Silchar t own area within 3 months. The decision taken by the respondents to shift the parking stands to 41. out-side Silchar town area (to ISBT) and to operate the buses from ISBT appears to be in the larger public interest. The authorities have expressed the view that such measures are immediately required to ease the problem of traffic con gestion and traffic jam in Silchar town, which has now assumed alarming propo rtion. While taking such a decision, there will be cases of individual hardship and inconveniences, but such hardship and inconveniences will have to give way to the larger public interest . Where the parking stands should be situated o r from where the buses should operate are decisions which should be best left to the administration to decide keeping in view the local conditions. A writ C ourt would be extremely hesitant and reluctant to enter into an examination o f such issues unless arbitrariness and unreasonableness can be shown. In the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that neither the Govern ment notification dated 15.7.2008 nor the decision of the Deputy Commissioner d ated 23.5.2012 can be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. Moreover, as pointe d out by Mr. Rajbangshi, learned Standing Counsel for the Transport Department, the petitioners had themselves assured to shift the parking stands to outside Silchar town. In the meeting held on 27.5.2012, the Barak Valley Commercial Tran sport Owners Coordination Committee took an unanimous decision to shift the par king to outside Silchar town which was conveyed to the Deputy Commissioner on 28 .05.2012. Question is not of having own land for parking stand. It is the view o f the administration that because of the presence of parking stands inside the t own, there is traffic congestion and traffic jam. According to the administratio n, to ease the situation, shifting of the parking stands to outside the town are a is immediately necessary. Furthermore, shifting of the parking stands do not m ean putting an embargo or restriction on the plying of city buses, taxis etc. on the roads of Silchar town. 42. However, in the process of shifting, various problems or grievance may arise which should be looked into and redressed. For such purpose, the Court is of the view that the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar may constitute a Grievance Red ressal Committee comprising of himself, Superintendent of Police, District Trans port Officer and such other person whom he may like to coopt, to meet on regular basis. Subject to the observations made above, this Court is not inclined t 43. o proceed further in the matter. No case for interference is made out. According ly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. Interim orders passed earlier shall st and vacated.