Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 183 (PAT)

Ganesh Singh v. State of Bihar

2013-02-07

SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA

body2013
ORDER Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, Zila Parishad and A.C. to A.A.G-15 for the State. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Zila Parishad could not settle any public place for being used as bus stand or as taxi stand without being notified by the Regional Transport Authority Saran under the provisions of Rule 191 of the Bihar Motor Vehicle Rules 1992 and as such Zila Parishad has not valid authority to settle any land as Bus/Taxi Stand and allow collection of tolls as appearing from the receipt vide Annexure-1. It would further appear on perusal of letter no.122 dated 27th February 2007 as also the communication as per memo no. 324 dated 28.02.2007 as contained in Annexure- 4 and 4/1 respectively that without having been notified by the Regional Transport Authority no place can be used as Bus/Taxi stand or settled. Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Mitrynjay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and others as reported in 2002 (2) PLJR 426 . 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Zila Parishad submits that the place has been settled as bus stand/taxi stand since the land belongs to the Zila Parishad and the same is being settled right from the inception of the Zila Parishad Act and as such the action of the Zila Parishad is correct and justified in law. It is further submitted that the Rule 191 of the Bihar Motor Vehicle Rules 1992 shall have no control over the function of the Zila Parishad as the Zila Parishad functions as per the Zila Parishad Act 1961. 4. Considering the submission of the parties and their respective pleadings it is not in dispute that the Regional Transport Authority, Saran under Sub Rule 1 of Rule 191 of Motor Vehicle Rules has not notified the place in question as Bus/Taxi Stand. 5. 4. Considering the submission of the parties and their respective pleadings it is not in dispute that the Regional Transport Authority, Saran under Sub Rule 1 of Rule 191 of Motor Vehicle Rules has not notified the place in question as Bus/Taxi Stand. 5. Learned counsel for the Zila Parishad is not in a position to distinguish the decision of this Court as referred to above whereby it has been held that the Zila Parishad has no authority to auction the bus stand unless a particular place is earmarked or is so designated by the Regional Transport Authority as halting station/bus stand- the property may vest in the Zila Parishad – such power vests in the Regional Transport Authority- Rule 191 has the force of law with respect to the place for Bus/Taxi Stand. 6. In my opinion, in view of the above provision of law and the decision of this Court referred to above, Zila Parishad could not have settled the land for being used as bus stand without it being notified by Regional Transport Authority. The action of the Zila Parishad in earmarking land in question for being used as bus stand without being notified by the Regional Transport Authority in terms of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 191 of the Bihar Motor Vehicle Rules cannot be sustained in law for the year 2012-2013 as appearing from annexure-1. Accordingly the settlement if any for the bus stand or taxi stand in question is invalid in law. It goes without saying that if the Zila Parishad is inclined to settle its lands any place which needs to be notified for the said purpose as above Zila Pariishad will have liberty to approach the Regional Transport Authority for the same under the aforesaid Rule 191 of the Motor Vehicle Rules. The application stands disposed of.