Aftab Alam, J.
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 Section 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.
4. Mr. Bibhuti Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda was inoperative, unenforceable and non est in the eyes of law for the simple reason that the District Magistrate did not have the legal authority to designate a bus stand for vehicles coming from outside Rajgir and to levy fees on such vehicles. Mr. Pandey submitted that under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules the power to designate a bus stand and levy fees on the vehicles lay with Regional Transport Authority.
5. Mr. Alamdar Hussain, learned SC VI appearing for the respondents first resisted the challenge to the order passed by the District Magistrate on the grounds of locus standi. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner's permit would have lapsed on 8-1 -1999 and after that date he ceased to nave any interest in the matter and, therefore, he cannot be allowed to assail the order etting up a bus stand at Rajgir and levying fees on vehicles coming there. In support of his submision learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Kalyan Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1962 SC 1183.
6. It is indeed true that at the time of filing of the writ petition the validity of the petitioner's permit was up to 8-1-1999 but it is equally true hat having a valid permit the petitioner had a vested right for its renewal. Unfortunately, none of the counsel are in a position to clearly state whether or not the permit of the petitioner was renewed after 8-1-1999 and whether or not it was subsisting when this case was taken up for hearing. I am, however, not inclined to reject this case simply on the ground of locus and in my view the decision relied upon by Mr. Hussain has no application to the facts of this case. In the case of Kalyan Singh (AIR 1962 SC 1183, pursuant to the nationalisation of the route the permit issued in favour of the appellant (of that case was cancelled). It was in that context that the Supreme Court observed (at p. 1188 of AIR):
'If the scheme was validly promulgated and became final within the meaning of Section 68D(3), it had the effect of extinguishing all rights of the appellant to pty his vehicles under his permit. After cancellation of his permit, he could not maintain apetition under Art. 226 because a right to maintain such petition postulates a subsisting personal right in the claim which the petitioner makes and in the protection of which he is personally interested.'
The decision clearly does not apply to the facts of this case.
7. There is another reason for which I am not inclined to allow this case to be escape adjudication on the grounds of locus. It is because a number of cases are coming to this Court on the question as to the authority which can designate a bus stand. There are cases on the board of this Court where bus stands are designated and put up for settlement at the instance of Zilla Parishad. In some other cases bus stands are set up by the Municipal Corporation. And in this case it is the District Magistrate who has issued the order designating the, bus stand. I, therefore, feel that it would be in the larger interest that this question be settled, once, for all.
8. Coming now to examine the validity of the impugned order it may be noted that for designating the bus stand the District Magistrate has relied upon the provisions as contained in Section 117 of the Act read with Rule 187 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules and for the purpose of levying fees he has similarly relied upon rule 191(2)(ii) of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules. Now so far as Rule 191 (2)(ii) is concerned it is plain and clear that the District Magistrate has committed an error in purporting to act under that provision for the purpose of leyying fees on the vehicles coming to the bus stand. Rule 191(2) undoubtedly deals with the power to make rules or give direction prescribing the fees to be paid by the owners of the Public service vehicles using the bus stand. But the power to prescribe fees is not assigned to the District Magistrate but to the Regional Transport Authority. A mere reading of Rule 191(2) makes the position quite clear and beyond the scope of any debate on the issue. It is, therefore, clear that the second part of the order levying rates of fees realisable from the different kinds of passenger vehicles was clearly unauthorised and it must therefore be held to be invalid.
9. Now coming to the order in so far as it designates a bus stand for Rajgir and directs all passenger vehicles coming to Rajgir to stop there and nowhere else. Mr. Hussain submitted that designating a piece of land as bus stand and setting up the necessary infrastructure there was perfectly within the powers of the District Magistrate and therefore no interference was warranted in so far as the order designated the bus stand for Rajgir. Learned counsel made his submission on the basis of Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
10. At first instance the submission appears to be plausible but on a closer scrutiny of the different provisions of the Act and the Rules the error in the submission becomes clear and it transpires that it stems from confusing parking place with bus stand which are treated differently in the Act and the Rules.
11. Chapter V of the Act deals with 'control of transport vehicles'. Section 96 in this chapter deals with the power of the State Government to make rules for the purpose of this chapter. Clause XXII of Section 2 of Section 96 empowers the State Government to make rule(s) on :
'The requirements which shall be complied with in me construction or use of any duly notified stand or halting place, including the provision of adequate equipment and facilities for the convenience of all users thereof, the fees, if any, which may be charged for the use of facilities, the records which shall be maintained at such stands or places, the staff to be employed thereat, and the duties and conduct of such staff, and generally for maintaining such stands and places in a serviceable and clean condition.'
12. The next provision to be examined in this connection is contained in Rule 191 of the Bihar Motor Vehicle Rules, 1992. Mr. Almdar Hussain pointed out that the meaning of Rule 191(1) in its English version was not quite clear and there appeared to be some printing errors. I, therefore, examined the original Hindi version of the rules as published in the official gazette. It appears that even in Hindi, Rule 191(1) is not very happily drafted and its English translation has only worsened the position. Though the provision is not lappily drafted, at least one thing is quite clear and it is that the power to designate a bus stand and to prescribe the fees to be paid by the owners of public service vehicle vests in the Regional Transport Authority and not with the District Magistrate. The Hindi version of Rule 191 is as follows :
999- iMko ,oa fojke LFky& i
{ks= ds LFkkuh; izkf/kdkfj;ksa ds ijke'kZ vkSj ,sls 'kgj] tgka mik;qDr gks]
mik;qDr vkSj vU; LFkku esa ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh ds ijke'kZ ls izknsf'kd ifjogu izkf/kdkj
jktdh; jkti= esa vf/klwpuk }kjk vFkok vuqeku ;krk;kr ladsrksa dks LFkkfir dj {ks=
ds LFkkuh; izkf/kdkfj;ksa lacaf/kr ftyk n.Mkf/kdkfj;ksa ds ijke'kZ ls jktdh;jkti=
esa vf/klwpuk ,oa@ vFkok /kkjk 196 dh mi/kkjk 1 ds vUrxZr ;krk;kr ladsrksa
dks LFkkfir dj ;kf=;ksa dks pkus ,oa@vFkok
mrkjus ds laca/k esa yksd lsok ckguksa }kjk vFkok fof'k"V yksd lsok okgu }kjk&1
fo'ks"k LFkku vFkok fo'ks"k izdkj ;k oxZ ds LFkku ds mi;ksx dks 'krZ
vFkok fcuk 'krZ ds oftZr dj ldrs gSaa] ;k
ii
fdlh uxj fuxe] uxjikfydk] vf/klwfpr {ks= vFkok Nkouh dh lhek esa vFkok vf/klwpuk
esa mfYyf[kr vU; lhek,a fof'k"V iMko vFkok fojke LFky gh mi;ksx fd;s tkus
dk vkns'k ns ldrs gS %&
ijUrq
fdlh fcth LFkku dks muds ekfyd dh iwoZ fyf[kr lgefr ds fcuk vf/klwfpr ugha fd;k
tk;xk A tgka fdlh LFkku dk bl fo"k; ds fy, iMko ;k fojke LFky ds :i esa vf/klwpuk
,oa@vFkok ;kkrk;kr ladsrksa ls lhekafdr fd;k x;k
gS] rc fdlh O;fDr ds n[ky esa Hkwfe jgus ds ckotwn mDr LFkku bu fu;eksa ds izko/kkuksa
ds v/khu vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr lkoZtfud LFkku
lek tk;sxk vkSj izknsf'kd ifjogu izkf/kdkj lekSrk dj ldrk gS vFkok mDr
LFkku ds izca/k ;k la/kkj.k ftlesa Hkou vFkok vko';d dk;Z lfEefyr gksus ds fy,
vuqKk i= bl 'krZ ds lkFk Lohr dj ldrk gS fd bldh 'krZ ds mYya?ku dj lekSrk
;k vuqKk i= lekIr lek tk;xk vkSj mDr LFkku ds fy, vU;Fkk fu;e fu/kkZfjr dj
ldsxk vFkok funsZ'k ns ldsxk A
i
lkoZtfud lsok okguksa vFkok ekfydksa }kjk LFkku ds mi;ksx gsrq Qhl dk fu/kkZj.k
rFkk mDr Qhl dh izkfIr ,oa fuca/ku]&
ii
lkoZtfud lsok okguksa vFkok lkoZtfud lsok okguksa ds oxZ dk mYys[k] tks LFkku dk
mi;ksx djsaxs vkSj tks LFkku dk mi;ksx ugha djasxs-
iii
fdlh O;fDr ds LFkku dk izca/kd fu;qDr djuk vkSj izca/kd ds vf/kdkj ,oa drZO;ksa
dk fu/kkZj.k]
iv
HkwLokeh vFkok LFkkfud izkf/kdkjh] tks ykxw gks] dks fu;e vFkok funsZ'k esa
mfYyf[kr dk;ksZ dks LFkkfir djus dks funsZ'k nsuk vkSj bldk mi;ksxh] LoPN ,oa
LokLF;izn fLFkfr esa la/kkj.k]
v
HkwLokeh vFkok LFkkuh; izkf/kdkjh tks ykxw gks] dks ;k=k djus dks bPNqd
O;fDr;ksa lfgr ;kf=;ksa dks is; ty dh eqQr~ vkiwfrZ dh O;oLFkk djus dk vkns'k]
vi
fof'k"V O;fDr;ksa ;k fof'k"V O;fDr;ksa ls vU; }kjk ,sls LFkkuksa ds
mi;ksx ij izfrca/k A
3 mi fu;e 2 dh dksbZ ckr
Hkw&Lokeh dks iMko ;k fojke LFky ds :i esa fu/kkZfjr LFkku ds fy, mldh lgefr
fcuk dksbZ dk;Z lEikfnr djus vFkok fdlh O;; dk cks mBkus vFkok fdlh fu;e
vFkok bl fu;e ds vUrxZr fdlh funsZ'k dk vuqikyu ugha djus dh fLFkfr esa lq;ksX;
inkf/kdkjh mDr LFkku ds mi;ksx ij izfrca/k yxk ldrs gaSa A
13. As regards Mr. Husain's submission based on Section 117 of the Act, it is to be first noted that section falls in Chapter VIII dealing with the control of traffic'. Section 117 is as follows :
'Parking places and halting stations. The State Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, in consultation with the local authority having jurisdiction in the area concerned determine places at which motor vehicles may stand either indefinitely or for a specified period of time, and may determine the places at which public service vehicles may stop for a longer time than is necessary for the taking up and setting down of passengers.'
14. On a harmonious reading of Section 96(2)(xxii) along with Rule 191 and Section 117, it appears to me that the provision of Section 117 deals with designating parking zones in crowded market places and busy areas in a city or town with a view to facilitate smooth and un-obstructed flow of traffic. It must be borne in mind that a parking zone or a bus stop in a city or town is quite different from a bus stand. A parking zone or a bus stop are internal to a city and are set up primarily for the control of traffic inside the town and to save the crowded market areas and other busy centres of the city or town from further pressure of vehicles being parked there haphazardly, leading to further congestion. A bus stand on the other hand is primarily set up for stage carriage vehicles coming from and going to places outside the city or town.
15. It appears to me that the Act and the Rules maintain this clear distinction. While Section 96(2)(xxii) along with Rule 191 deals with the setting up of bus stands and empowers the Regional Transport Authority to designate the bus stand and to prescribe fees etc. Section 117 read with rule 187 empowers the District Magistrate to designate parking zones and issue directions on matters allied thereto. This position will be further clear from Rule 214 the relevant portion of which is as follows :
'Public parking place and stand : The District Magistrate may in consultation with the local authorities having jurisdiction in the area concerned notify --
(i) Any place as a parking place or a stand;
(ii) The class of motor vehicle that can be parked;
(iii) Maximum period of time for which a motor vehicle can be parked;
(iv) The fee that can be levied and collected by the local authority for such parking;
(v) and (vi) xx xx xx xx xx.
16. On a careful consideration of the relevant provisions, I am of the view that the setting up of a bus stand, as distinct and separate from a parking zone or a bus stop, is dealt with under Rule 191 of the Rules which empowers the Regional Transport Authority to designate a bus stand and to prescribe fees etc. The setting up of a parking zone or a bus stop for controlling the internal traffic of acity and town is dealt with under Section 117 read with Rules 187 and 214 which empower the District Magistrate to identify parking zones/ places.
17. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order issued by the District Magistrate, Nalanda designating a bus stand at Rajgir must be held to be invalid. The impugned order is accordingly set aside.
18. However, this order will not come in the way of the Regional Transport Authority in designating a bus stand at Rajgir. In fact, it will be advisable to do so expeditiously.
19. Needless to say that the bus stand will be designated in the manner as provided in Rule 191, that is, either by notification in the official gazette or by the erection of traffic signs as indicated in that rule.
20. In the result, this writ petition is allowed subject to the observations made above.