JUDGMENT T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. The question of location of a bus stop (described as a stopping place for stage carriages in R.236 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules) (the Rules for short), has led to considerable local controversy and even law and order problems. The question in issue is whether the opening of a" new bus stop 120 metres east of an existing bus stop and confining each stop to vehicles going in one particular direction is legal or proper. 2. The dispute relates to a bus stop in the Mongam Bazaar locality within the Morayoor panchayat. The trunk road from Calicut to Palghat and Madras runs east west through this panchayat. For facility of understanding the controversy, I have to locate three places on this road, starting from the western end, namely the Areembra junction where the old bus stop is located, the Pookulathur junction, 80 metres east and the new bus stop situate 40 metres further east. There is a road going south at the Areembra junction and a road branching to the north at the Pookulathur junction. There is a bus shelter on the northern side of the road at Areembra junction, that is, it will provide shelter to those proceeding east, towards, Palghat on the left side of the road. The new bus shelter is on the southern side of the road, 120 metres away and will provide shelter for those proceeding west, towards Calicut. 3. The old bus stop at the Areembra junction had been there for some time past, for about two decades. On 18th October 1979 the Morayoor panchayat passed a resolution proposing inter alia to open a new bus. stop and shelter at the eastern end of the Mongam Bazaar, that is the place where the new bus stop is situated. The collector's approval was sought and by his proceedings dated 19th March 1981 the District Collector, Malappuram granted sanction to the Panchayat for construction of the bus waiting shed between 37/000 and 37/200 kms. on the right (southern) side of the Calicut -Palghat road. 4. On 6th September, 1986 the Regional Transport Authority (R.T.A. for short) took a decision that all vehicles passing either way should stop at both the bus stops. The third respondent herein, who is the Convener of a Vikasana Samithy, challenged the decision in revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal for short). 4. On 6th September, 1986 the Regional Transport Authority (R.T.A. for short) took a decision that all vehicles passing either way should stop at both the bus stops. The third respondent herein, who is the Convener of a Vikasana Samithy, challenged the decision in revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal for short). The Revision was allowed by the order Ext. P-3. 5. The Tribunal noted that the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector had suggested that buses going in either direction may stop at the concerned bus stop that falls on their side of the road so that the bus stops may be used only by vehicles going in particular directions. This report of the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector is dated 21st August 1986 and is available in the files. The reason for the recommendation was that if vehicles were parked on both sides of the road at the two bus stops traffic problems will be created. He also noted that the new bus stop was in a very convenient place. 6. After noting the aforesaid report of the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector the Tribunal pointed out that the R.T.A. did not appear to have considered his suggestion and that the impugned order had been passed just to please the two local contending factions without going into the merits of the question. The matter was therefore, ordered to be considered and disposed of afresh by the R.T.A. after hearing all the parties concerned. 7. Though this question of opening of the new bus stop or as to how it should be used, was purely a matter of local importance, apart from the fact the two stops were distant just 120 metres from each other, the matter acquired a good deal of undue attention leading even do law and order problems, with the entry of political parties into the arena. After the remand, representations were made championing the cause of one or other of the two bus stops. The R.T.A. heard the matter again and affirmed its previous decision to have all the buses in either direction stopping at both the stops. This was on 20th December 1986 by the proceedings Ext. P-4. 8. The third respondent challenged these proceedings as well before the Tribunal, which was disposed of by the order Ext. P-7. The revision petition was allowed. This was on 20th December 1986 by the proceedings Ext. P-4. 8. The third respondent challenged these proceedings as well before the Tribunal, which was disposed of by the order Ext. P-7. The revision petition was allowed. The Tribunal took the view that the bus shelters at the two bus stops were situated on either side of the road and that it was only plain common sense that buses going west to Calicut should stop at the new bus stop where the bus shelter was on the southern side of the road; and buses going east stopped at the old bus stop where the shelter was on the northern side of the road. The Tribunal pointed out that if buses were parked at both the bus stops on either side of the road, it will lead to perennial traffic jam in the Mongam Bazaar, which was a busy place on the Calicut - Palghat - Madras trunk road. Passengers will have to cross the road from either side. Nobody who knows the rudiments of traffic arrangements could approve of such a situation resulting from the decision of the R.T. A. It was a matter of prudence and common sense and safety to the vehicles, passengers and pedestrians besides the other public that the two bus stops in question situate on either side of the road were used by vehicles running in either direction. The report of the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector was taken note of and the Tribunal had no hesitation in holding that the decision of the R.T.A. was illegal and improper. It was accordingly directed that buses going east will use the old bus stop on the northern side of the road, and buses going west will use the new bus stop on the southern side. This order is challenged. 9. The law governing , provision of bus stops is contained in R.236 of the Rules. It provides that the State or Regional Transport Authority may, if no stopping place has been fixed in accordance with the provisions of any statute, fix such places for stage carriages after consultation with such other authority as it may deem desirable. The rest of the rule is not relevant for purposes of this discussion. 10. It provides that the State or Regional Transport Authority may, if no stopping place has been fixed in accordance with the provisions of any statute, fix such places for stage carriages after consultation with such other authority as it may deem desirable. The rest of the rule is not relevant for purposes of this discussion. 10. The stopping place for a stage carriage, or a bus stop is intended to subserve the interests of the public, without at the same time proving to be a traffic hazard. The R.T.A. in this case directed that both the bus stops should be used by buses going in either direction, though the bus stops were situate just 120 metres apart. The location of a bus stop has to be fixed, keeping in mind considerations like the convenience of the public, traffic problems, suitability of the place for parking bus is public interest, safety of the public and such other relevant matters. The location should be fixed on an overall assessment of the various relevant factors, Though it is not possible to treat any one factor as more important than another, I would reckon safety of the public (travelling and non travelling) as well as smooth flow of traffic as paramount considerations. For instance, it may not be considered advisable to have a bus stop in a steep sloping place though it may otherwise be most convenient, or the authority may rightly opt against a bus stop in a narrow busy bazaar street to avoid traffic problems. In the event, it is for the authority charged with the duty of fixing the stopping place, to balance the various considerations and arrive at an objective decision on the proper place, uninfluenced by passions and prejudices, demands and pulls. That is what precisely the Tribunal did in this case. It may be convenient for some members of the public to have bus stops at close by places. But the larger public interest and safety of the public weighed with the Tribunal in reversing the decision of the R.T.A. 11. Mongam Bazaar is admittedly a busy place. The place is on a very busy trunk road from Calicut to Palghat and Madras, If buses are parked at the same bus stop on either side of the road, it needs no saying that there will be traffic jam. Mongam Bazaar is admittedly a busy place. The place is on a very busy trunk road from Calicut to Palghat and Madras, If buses are parked at the same bus stop on either side of the road, it needs no saying that there will be traffic jam. The road in question is a very busy road with heavy vehicular traffic. If two points just 120 metres apart are both to be located as bus stops with vehicles packed on either side of the road, the traffic problems that will be created can very well be imagined. There will be perennial blocking of traffic affecting free and fast flow of vehicles on the trunk road causing considerable amount of hardship and problems to the users of the road. The trunk road is meant for use not merely by the public of Mongam but by others as well going up and down, to and from Calicut and other places. 12. Apart from the traffic problem likely to be created, there is the all important safety aspect. The shelter at each bus stop is only on one side of the road. Naturally people will gather in the shelter and they will have to cross the busy road to the opposite side to catch the appropriate bus going in that direction. This is potentially a great traffic hazard on a main trunk road, with heavy traffic. The Tribunal has rightly taken note of this aspect of the matter in passing the impugned order. 13. The Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, visited the area and submitted his report that each bus stop should be used only for vehicles coming in one direction. He has given cogent reasons in support of his recommendation. I found from the files that the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. (Roads), Manjeri had also reported on 3rd January 1987 to the District Collector recommending unidirectional use of the bus stops. It is therefore, evident that various authorities have bestowed their mind to the question and were in unison in recommending that each bus stop should be used only for buses plying in one direction. 14. The order of the Tribunal is based on relevant factors and circumstances. The verdict of such a special statutory Tribunal ought not to be lightly disturbed unless there are very cogent reasons for the same. 14. The order of the Tribunal is based on relevant factors and circumstances. The verdict of such a special statutory Tribunal ought not to be lightly disturbed unless there are very cogent reasons for the same. No such reasons has been brought to my notice despite the very fervent and strenuous arguments of Mr. M. K. Chandramohan Das for the petitioner. 15. It was faintly argued that the third respondent had no locus standi to file the revision petition before the Tribunal. If this contention were to be accepted, the original petition itself will have to fail on the ground of locus standi. Both the petitioner and the third respondent are busy bodies - While the petitioner is the Secretary of the Paura Samithy, the third respondent represents the Vikasana Samithy. Both are interested in the proper location of the bus stop as residents of the Panchayat. The plea of lack of locus standi has no substance especially in this matter where the question agitated is not a personal grievance of the petitioner but one concerning the public. 16. The petitioner contends that R.236 requires consultation with such authority as may be deemed desirable. The Panchayat was one such authority who should have been consulted. The Tribunal should not have passed the impugned order without prior consultation with the Panchayat. 17. I am unable to agree. R.236 only requires that the Regional Transport Authority may fix such stopping places for stage carriages after consultation with such other authority as it may deem desirable. The rule does not oblige consultation with any specified authority. It is left to the R.T. A. to consult such authority as it may deem desirable. Therefore, if they do not think it desirable or necessary to consult any other authority, the provisions of the rule are not in any manner violated. Here the Panchayat itself had passed a resolution on 18th October 1979 proposing to open the new bus stop. ' The dispute is only as to how it should be used. 18. Counsel for the petitioner stressed - and that, repeatedly - that various political parties had sponsored the cause of his bus stop, namely the old bus stop. It looked as if the new bus stop was an orphan without takers. All the political parties were in favour of the old bus stop, it was said. 18. Counsel for the petitioner stressed - and that, repeatedly - that various political parties had sponsored the cause of his bus stop, namely the old bus stop. It looked as if the new bus stop was an orphan without takers. All the political parties were in favour of the old bus stop, it was said. A perusal of the file however shows that there are an equal number, if not more number, of persons espousing the cause of the new bus stop also. It is not as if it is without any supporters. The reliance placed on political support for the old bus stop has therefore, to fail. I am really not concerned with this aspect or about the numerical strength of those signing the mass petitions as the considerations relevant must transcend the convenience of a few local passengers when we are dealing with the matter of a bus stop on the highway. The fact that a few persons will have to trek a few more metres to reach the bus stop cannot over ride the public interest of safety and traffic discipline. 19. All the contentions raised by the petitioner therefore, fail. I had necessarily to deal with the matter at some length because of the vehemence with which the matter was argued before me by Sri Chandramohan Das, as if a great calamity will be fall the citizens of Mongam if Ext. P-7 order were allowed to stand. What the Tribunal has done is in the best interests of the public of the locality and the users of the highway. It subserves the safety of the citizens of Mongam and the bus passengers of the area. The direction given is only in tune with scientific traffic management of not having vehicles parked on either side of the road, blocking the traffic and reducing the available road area. The original petition has therefore, to be dismissed. I dismiss the original petition in limine.