MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BUS OPERATORS ORGANIZATION v. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MALAPPURAM

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.------------------------W.P.(C).No.5330 Of 2012----------------------Dated this the 17th day of October, 2012.J U D G M E N TThe Malappuram District Bus Operators Organisation is thepetitioner. The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P4decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram and fora direction directing the RTA to consider the matter after finalhearing in accordance with law. 2.Ext.P4 is the proceedings of the RTA, dated 17.7.2006.The agenda for the meeting was to consider the application forthe administrative sanction to construct a new bus stand atManjeri. The authority took the decision granting sanction toconstruct a new bus stand at Manjeri, subject to compliance ofthe provisions under Rule 344 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules(for short 'the Rules'). 3.It is contended by the petitioners that there is noprovision under Rule 344 of the Rules for granting primarysanction. It is pointed out that as per Rule 344 of the Rules thelocation of the bus stand could be determined in consultation withthe Municipality. It is contended that without determining the ::2::W.P.(C).No.5330 Of 2012location as provided under the Rule, under the guise of primarysanction, bus stand for stage carriage is put up and constructedin the Manjeri Municipality. 4.In 2006, W.P.(C).No.20855/2006 was filed by thepetitioner more or less for the very same relief. Ext.P1 is thecopy of the judgment dated 17.10.2006. This Court recorded thesubmission of the petitioner that since major portion of the workfor establishing a new bus stand at Manjeri is already over, thepetitioner association does not propose to pursue theircontentions. Recording the submission, the writ petition wasclosed. This Court observed that in case the Regional TransportAuthority takes any decision to divert the services of themembers of the petitioner association through the new bus standand if they feel aggrieved by it, they will be free to challenge thesame in accordance with law. According to the petitioner, theexisting operators have no complaints regarding the facilities ofthe two bus stands already provided to them. It is submittedthat the existing two bus stands have ample space for providingshelter to the passengers as well as to the stage carriage ::3::W.P.(C).No.5330 Of 2012vehicles. The petitioner association is aggrieved by Ext.P4decision granting primary sanction to construct a new bus standat Manjeri Municipality.5.In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 & 2 it isstated that the Secretary, Manjeri Municipality on 15.11.2005sought administrative sanction to construct a new bus stand atManjeri Municipality. The matter was enquired through theExecutive Engineer, PWD, Manjeri and Superintendent of Police,Manjeri. After enquiry, the matter was placed before the RTA.The RTA, by order dated 17.7.2006 granted administrativesanction for the construction of a bus stand as requested forsubject to the compliance of the provisions of Rule 344 of theRules. According to respondents 1 & 2, the action of the RTA isin public interest for the speedy disposal of the matter and thatthere is no illegality on the part of the authority in the disposal ofthe matter by circulation. It is also contended that the the writpetition filed challenging the order after a span of six years is notmaintainable. ::4::W.P.(C).No.5330 Of 20126.In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondentMunicipality, it is inter alia contended that an extent of 3 acresand 2 cents in R.S.No.350/1 and 342 in Manjeri Village wassurrendered by as many as 18 individuals free of cost to theMunicipality for the purpose of constructing a bus station atKacherippadi, Manjeri. The lay out was approved by the ChiefTown Planner as per order dated 1.12.2005 (Ext.R3(a)). theGovernment was pleased to pass orders relaxing zonalregulations vide order dated 28.9.2004 (Ext.R3(b)). It is pointedout that Exts.R3(a) & R3(b) were obtained by the Municipality.It is stated that the Municipality after inviting tenders hadcommenced the construction of a 3 storied shopping complex andthe yard which is now complete. A bus bay which canaccommodate 20 buses at a time is also constructed apart fromproviding ideal parking facilities for 50 buses. It is also pointedout that parking area is provided for taxis and rickshaws as well.Regarding the existing two bus stations, it is stated that one ofthem can accommodate hardly 11 buses, that the said stationwhich is in the nerve centre of the town and adjacent to the daily ::5::W.P.(C).No.5330 Of 2012market is a bottle neck causing continuous traffic jam, that with aview to resolve the traffic congestion in the town, the Municipalityconstructed another bus station at Pandikkad road in 1992 whichcan accommodate only 25 buses. It is pointed out that both thebus stations have proved to be ineffective particularly consideringthe smooth traffic mobility. In the said circumstances, theMunicipal Council decided to construct a bus station little awayfrom the town. The decision was taken, taking into considerationthe long clamour for a bus station which could accommodatemore buses and bring down the traffic congestion in Manjeritown. It is stated that the public surrendered 3 acres of land atfree of cost to the Municipality to enable to realise the dream. Inparagraph 8 of the counter affidavit it is also stated that if at allthere exists any grievance, it could be ventilated through dueprocess before respondents 1 & 2 in consultation with theMunicipality in terms of Rule 344(1) of the Rules. It is alsostated that all the grievance raised can be resolved in accordancewith law and that the Municipality is anxiously looking forward toresolve the issue at the earliest. ::6::W.P.(C).No.5330 Of 20126.Ext.P4 decision is dated 17.7.2006. The writ petitionwas filed after a period of six years. There is no bona fides inchallenging the order passed six years back. Even then, in theinterest of justice, this Court is of the view that the grievance ofthe petitioner, if any, can be ventilated through due processbefore respondents 1 & 2 in consultation with the Municipality interms of Rule 344 (1) of the Rules. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of withoutprejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach respondents 1& 2 in terms of Rule 344 (1) of the Rules, if so advised. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge.bkn/-