S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
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 2th 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. Subsequently, 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. The case of the petitioner is that the authorities have not taken step to deal with traffic system with the Ramgarh bus stand but allowed the trekker to park in old bus stand which is contrary to the provisions of law, as referred above.
4. 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. District Magistrate, Mathura, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1339 and the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Yadav v. State of Bihar, reported in 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.
5. Mr. Kalyan Roy, counsel for Cantonment Board while raised preliminary objection of maintainability of writ petition at the instance of the petitioner, referred Section 117(b) of the Cantonments Act, 1924 wherein the Cantonment Board have been empowered to construct, establish or maintain public parks, gardens, offices, diaries, bathing or washing places, drinking fountains, tanks, wells and other works of public utility within the Cantonment.
6. Admittedly, the area in question is within the Ramgarh Cantonment. There is no bus stand notified by Regional Transport Authority for Ramgarh subdivision. A bus stand or parking zone/places of bus is of public utility not in dispute. In view of the fact that there was no notified bus stand of the Ramgarh subdivision, the President of India ordered to adopt certain measures in Ramgarh Cantonment including vesting in certain area under Section 108 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 and Rule 6 of the Cantonment Property Rules, 1925. It was ordered to construct a new bus stand and shopping complex on payment of annual rent of Rs. 100/- to the Central Government: It was communicated by Government of India, Ministry of Defence by letter No. 714/16/L/DE/ 90/145/DO(V)/D(L), dated 20th February, 2001, as quoted hereunder : 'No. 714/16/L/DE/90/145/ DO(V)/ D(L)
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
New Delhi. The 20th February, 2001
To,
The Director General
Defence Estates,
West Block No. IV
RK Puram, New Delhi 110066
Subject : Reclassification of land at Ramgarh. Cantt, Measuring 2.96 acres out of Sy. No. 142 (Camping Ground)
Sir
I am directed to convey the sanction of the President to the adoption of the following measures in Ramgarh Cantonment :
(a) Reclassification under Rule 7 of Clause A, Rules, 1937 of an area measuring 2.95 acres, comprises of GLR Sy. No. 142 from Class A-2 to Class C.
(b) Vesting the area mentioned at (a) above under Section 108 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 read with Rule 6 of the Cantonment Property Rules, 1925 in the local Cantonment Board for construction of a new Bus Stand and shopping complex on payment of an annual rent of Rs. 100/- (Rs. One Hundred only) to the Central Government.
(c) Consequent amendment to the GLR/GLR Plan.
2. Vesting of the land in the local Cantonment Board is subject to the condition that Cantonment Board will provide right of way laying electric/ water/sewage lines through the land as and when required.
3. This issues with the concurrence of Defence (Finance) vide their U.O. No. 257/W-1-2001, dated 12.2.2001.
Sd/-
(M.V. Vijayan)
Desk Officer'
Admittedly, the S.D.O., Ramgarh, Hazaribagh has no jurisdiction to declare a bus stand. But there is a power with the Cantonment Board to make provision for public utility in the Cantonment Area. No bus stand having notified by the Regional Transport Authority in the subdivision, Ramgarh, the question of shifting of bus stand does not arise. However, if for public utility, the Cantonment Board on the direction of the President of India has given certain facilities for buses to park, it cannot be interfered with merely because the word 'Bus Stand' has been loosely used.
7. The petitioner represented the 10th respondent, the Cantonment Executive Officer, Ramgarh Cantonment, Hazaribagh to shift the so called Ramgarh bus stand to new bus stand vide letter dated 25th March, 2003. In the meeting dated 21st July, 2003, the representative of petitioner, Sri Om Prakash Mishra took part and resolved to shift the buses from so called old bus stand to new bus stand w.e.f. 1st August, 2003. On their request, including the request of the petitioner, if the Cantonment Board spent huge amount for public utility in the Cantonment Area, the petitioner cannot challenge it.
In view of such action of the petitioner this Court is also not inclined to interfere with the memo No. 499, dated 29th July, 2003 which is not an order but an agreement reached between the petitioner and others.
It the petitioner or its members are not inclined to shift their buses to any other place, the present place where they are parking their buses being not notified bus stand by the Regional Transport Authority, not having declared as 'parking place' by the District Magistrate, they cannot keep their buses, nor can park them at the present place.
8. In the circumstances, no relief can be granted. The writ petition is dismissed.
However, there shall be no order, as to costs.