Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : The above writ petitions relate to the proposal of shifting of public bus stand viz. Anna Municipal Bus Stand of Palayamkottai Road, Tuticorin, (hereinafter referred to as 'the old bus stand') to the new site at Sankarperi village in Ward No. 4 of Tuticorin Municipal Limits (hereinafter referred to as the 'New Bus Stand'). 3. W.P. Nos. 6630 and 6631 of 1993 were filed by the stage carriage operators, plying their buses from Tuticorin to Kovilpatti. 4. W.P. No. 17597 of 1993 was filed by the shop owners having their place of business at New Bus Stand, Tuticorin. 5. W.P. No. 17855 of 1993 was filed by the Consumer Rights Protection Federation, Tuticorin. 6. It is not in dispute that the Tuticorin Municipality, by its resolution dated 9-1-1987, resolved to construct a new bus stand at Sankarpeti village in Ward No. 4 of Tuticorin Municipal Limits in an area of about 13 .44 acres, abutting at Ettayapuram road, at the cost of 1 .20 crores and to shift the then existing public bus stand to the new site; construction of the new bus stand was completed and accordingly the same was ready for use from Sept. 1992. The Regional Transport Authority, by its proceedings dated 11-3-1988, had also approved the site for the new bus stand to the new place, there was certain dissatisfaction among a group of general public shop owners and traders, who were having their place of business, in the old bus stand, and among the stage carriage operators, who were operating their buses from the old bus stand, which ultimately resulted in filing of the above writ petition. 7. When W.P. No. 17855 of 1993 came up for admission A.R. Lakshmanan, J., passed the following order in W.M.P. No. 27871 of 1993, filed in the above writ petition on 28-9-1993. "Nobody is prejudiced in any manner if the bus owners are willing to stop their passengers and also to permit the passengers to board the bus, and also at the new bus stand for the same purpose, which, in my opinion, will be in the interest of the travelling public. This interim arrangement will continue until further orders. Counter by two weeks. Post the W.M.P. along with the other connected W.M.P. along with the other connected W.M.Ps. Notice to R.2." 8. This interim arrangement will continue until further orders. Counter by two weeks. Post the W.M.P. along with the other connected W.M.P. along with the other connected W.M.Ps. Notice to R.2." 8. The aforesaid order was subsequently modified by order dated 26-11-1993, after hearing the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 17597 and 17855 of 1993, which reads as follows :- "Heard Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned Senior counsel, Mr. R. Gandhi, learned senior counsel, Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel, and Mr. V.R. Rajasekaran, learned Government Advocate. By consent of all parties and in modification of my earlier order dated 28-9-1993 in W.M.P. No. 27871 of 1993, the following order is passed. 1. The buses which come from the southern side and proceed towards northern side should go through the old bus stand and new bus stand. 2. The buses which come form the Northern side and proceed towards the southern side should go through the new bus stand and old bus stand. 3. The buses which come from northern, side and which terminate at Tuticorin, will on its way to the new bus stand, tough and enter the old bus stand to enable the passengers to alight at the old bus stand." 9. The above said orders dated 28-9-1993 and 26-11-1993, were subsequently, stood modified by the order dated 10-2-1994, by J. Kanakaraj, J., which reads as follows : "I have carefully considered the rival submissions and I do find some force in the objection raised by Mr. Somayajee, appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 17855 of 1993. The running time of buses coming from Tirunelveli and Tiruchendur and terminating at Tuticorin is hardly one hour. If these buses are direct ed to proceed to the new bus stand by crossing the railway level cross there is every chance of these buses consuming some considerable time in going to the new bus stand and coming back. I am, therefore, inclined to direct at least 50% of the buses to go to the new bus stand. But this is a matter, which is to be ultimately monitored by the Regional Transport Authority. I am, therefore, inclined to direct at least 50% of the buses to go to the new bus stand. But this is a matter, which is to be ultimately monitored by the Regional Transport Authority. Learned Government Pleader rightly points out that Rule 245(i) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules contains a proviso which says that where there are two or more public stands notified by the Regional Transport Authority, it is open to the Regional Transport Authority, as to satisfy the bus stand which the stage carriage shall make use of for the purpose of stationing their vehicles picking up or setting down passengers. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the proper authority who can decide this issue raised in W.M. Nos. 2043, 2044 and 2327 of 1991, is the Regional Transport Authority, I therefore, direct the Regional Transport Authority, as and when any of these parties move him by a representation, to consider the issue after giving notice to the concerned parties and pass appropriate order. The direction now given to the Regional Transport Authority will apply only in respect of the request made in these miscellaneous petitions. In other words, the order of AR. Lakshmanan, J. will stand unaffected till the disposal of the writ petition. 3. The writ miscellaneous petitions are ordered accordingly." 10. Pursuant to the above said orders of this Court, the Regional Transport Officers, Tuticorin by proceedings dated 28-2-1995, made an interim arrangement, of course , by exercising his statutory powers under Rule 245 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and said interim arrangement continues till date without any complaint or protest whatsoever. 11. Mr. K. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No. 13229 of 1992, contends that when the statute provides certain procedure to be followed by the Regional Transport Authority before passing any orders for shifting the public bus stand to new site and such procedure had been followed while passing the proceedings, dated 28-2-1996, pursuant to the orders of this Court, referred to above, and more so when there is no protest or objection by whomsoever to the said interim arrangement made in the proceedings dated 28-2-1995 in compliance of Rule 245 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, the same could continue without any deviation. 12. Mr. C.R. Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 12. Mr. C.R. Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 6630 and 6631 of 1993, contends that the stage carriage operators were not given sufficient opportunity to express their grievances by the regional transport authority before passing the order dated 20-2-1995, and therefore, the same is violative of Rule 245(f) of the Rules. 13. Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 17597 of 1993 contends that the Municipality had already spent Rs. 1.20 crores for the construction of the new bus stand to ease the traffic congestion and to provide a better development of the town as resolved by the local body i.e., Tuticorin Municipality to shift the old bus stand to the new site with the due approval of the Regional Transport Authority as early as on 11-3-1988, there is no justification in postponing the shifting of the bus stand to the new site. Learned senior counsel further contends that a peace committee was already constituted and after thorough deliberations on the issues passed the resolutions dated 10-8-1983, favouring the shifting of the public bus stand to the new site any further postponement in the matter would only cause inconvenience to the general public. Learned senior counsel contends, that in any event, the order dated 28-2-1995, passed by the Regional Transport Authority, made pursuant to the orders of this courts referred to above could at the best be an interim arrangement thought fit by the Regional Transport Authority during the pendency of the above writ petitions and therefore the same cannot be said to be the final decision taken under Rule 245 of the rules. 14. Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No. 17855 of 1993, contends that shifting of the public bus stand to a new place is meant only for the convenience of the general public and, therefore, before shifting the bus stand, it is the duty of the authorities concerned to ensure that no inconvenience is caused to the general public at large. Learned senior counsel further contends that the old bus stand is located in 5.5. Learned senior counsel further contends that the old bus stand is located in 5.5. acres of land and the buses termination from the old bus stand and the shifting of the bus stand would only cause further traffic congestion as the entire traffic has to wait for a long time to cross the railway level cross to reach the new site. Learned senior counsel further contends that, in any event, the interim arrangement which was admittedly made by exercising the statutory power under Rule 245 of the rules, Regional Transport Authority pursuant to the orders of this court dated 10-2-1994, is being successfully implemented without any complaint from any quarter or any protest by whomsoever and, therefore there is no necessity to change the present arrangement made under the proceedings dated 28-2-1995. 15. Mr. R. Gandhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the 5th and 6th respondents in W.P. No. 17855 of 1993, who were impleaded as parties pursuant to the order, dated 26-11-1993, passed by this Court in W.M.P. Nos. 29095 and 28873 of 1993, contends that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the scheme evolved by the Regional Transport Authority by proceedings dated 28-2-1995 itself is a workable one without causing any inconvenience to any person and such scheme had been evolved by the authorities by exercise of statutory powers under Rule 245 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, there is no necessity to bring in any further change in the interim arrangement made in the proceedings dated 28-2-1995 as admitted by the learned Government Advocate that there are no complaints or protests against the resolution dated 22-2-1995 from any one. 16. I have given my careful consideration to the submissions of all parties. 17. No doubt, the order dated 28-2-1995 was passed by the Regional Transport Authority by exercising his powers under Rule 245 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules pursuant to the order of this Court dated 10-2-1994. However, it cannot be disputed that there was an indication in the order dated 10-2-1994 in the nature of direction to the Regional Transport Authority that at least 50% of the buses should go to new bus stand. However, it cannot be disputed that there was an indication in the order dated 10-2-1994 in the nature of direction to the Regional Transport Authority that at least 50% of the buses should go to new bus stand. The above said direction of this Court was taken into consideration by the Regional Transport Authority while framing the interim arrangement in the proceedings dated 28-2-1985, on account of which the parties could not challenge the said proceedings dated 28-2-1995 as the same at the best could be considered only as an interim arrangement made pursuant to the directions of this Court. 18. Therefore the fact remains that the proceedings dated 28-2-1995 was intended only as an interim arrangement, although the same is being successfully implemented and sustained till date. 19. However, it appears that after the passing of the proceedings dated 28-2-1995, a meeting was convened by the Regional Transport Authority on 21-8-1996 to arrive at a final solution in the matter, but no final decision could be arrived at due to the pendency of the above writ petition, which necessitated this Court to pass this order despite the earlier interim orders and the proceedings dated 28-2-1995 of the Regional Transport Authority, referred to above. 20. There is no dispute that power to shift public bus stand to a new site vests with the Regional Transport Authority when there are more than one public bus stand in the area. Rule 245 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Regional Transport Authority in the matter of shifting of a public bus stand. Even though, each of the petitioners herein has his own grievance in the matter of shifting of the public bus stand, as urged before this Court. In my considered opinion, it would not be proper for this court either to go into the merits and demerits of the grievances of the each petitioner at this stage. Under the facts and circumstances, of this case, it suffices (i) to direct the Local Body of the Tuticorin Municipality to convene a council meeting, if necessary even an extraordinary council meeting, to discuss the subject of shifting of the bus stand to the new site, viz. Under the facts and circumstances, of this case, it suffices (i) to direct the Local Body of the Tuticorin Municipality to convene a council meeting, if necessary even an extraordinary council meeting, to discuss the subject of shifting of the bus stand to the new site, viz. Ward No. 4, Sankarpati village of Tuticorin Municipal Limits and to take appropriate decision within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the same to the Regional Transport Authority; (ii) the petitioners in each of the above writ petitions are permitted to make representations, setting forth their grievances, to the Regional Transport Authority, within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order; (iii) the Regional Transport Authority, on receipt of such resolutions of the local body of the Tuticorin Municipality and the representation of the petitioners in the above writ petitions, shall convene a conference, after giving notice to the petitioners herein as well as to the Tuticorin Municipality and also sufficient opportunity of being heard to the Stage Carriage Operators, operating their stage carriers within the Tuticorin Municipal limits and then pass appropriate final orders as the authority may deem fit and necessary in due compliance of Rule 245 of the Rules, within five months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and such final orders of the Regional Transport Authority shall be binding on all the parties and the same shall be strictly adhered to and implemented, and (iv) till the Regional Transport Authority passes final orders as indicated above, the present interim arrangement made by the Regional Transport Authority under the proceedings dated 28-2-1995 shall operate. 21. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.