1. Heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the WP(C) No. 1023/2009. The petitioner in the WP(C) 4478/2007 is represented by advocate Mr. S.C. Biswas. M/s. Priya Travels (respondent No. 8) is represented by Mr. B. Talukdar, the learned Counsel. The learned Government Advocate Mr. J. Handique appears for the other official respondents while the Commissioner of Transport is represented by the Standing Counsel for the Transport department. 2. The matter pertains to the traffic congestion and inconvenience caused by parking of buses by the respondent M/s. Priya Travels and the petitioners contend that the private respondent is illegally operating their bus stand in the heart of the Daboka town without any trade licence or legal authority. 3. On 30.9.1991, the SDO, Hojai with the consent of the land owners allowed M/s. Priya Travels to utilise 2 Katha 10 Lechas of land on the Daboka-Diphu Road. But it was specified that the buses should not be parked outside of the specified land and the vehicle should not be parked on the Government land and cause obstruction. But violating the conditional permission, the respondent No. 8 developed the land as a commercial area and started to park 20/30 buses on the roadside and on nearby vacant Government land. Consequently the aggrieved people of Daboka town complained to the SDO(Civil), Hojai and also to the Daboka Town Committee on the nuisance caused by operation of the bus stand by the bus operator in the congested roadside of the Daboka township. 4. Acting on the public complaint, the Daboka Town Committee resolved on 9.3.2007 to confine bus parking by respondent No. 8 within the specified private land and prohibited utilization of roadside land for parking buses by M/s. Priya Travels. The Town Committee also resolved to enforce No Parking Zone in the concerned area and it was further resolved that no bus stand will be allowed to be operated in the town without permission of the Daboka Town Committee. 5. The Circle Officer, Daboka in his report dated 26.2.2007 compared the present town scenario with the earlier times of 1991-1992 when permission was granted to the respondent No. 8 and considering the increasing flow of vehicular traffic through the township, recommended the transport operators to shift the bus stand away from the town. 6. 5. The Circle Officer, Daboka in his report dated 26.2.2007 compared the present town scenario with the earlier times of 1991-1992 when permission was granted to the respondent No. 8 and considering the increasing flow of vehicular traffic through the township, recommended the transport operators to shift the bus stand away from the town. 6. Acting on the recommendation of the Circle Officer, the SDM, Hojai in public interest through his order dated 28.3.2007 specified a No Parking Zone along the National Highway (NH) 36 and NH 54 and ordered M/s. Priya Travels to relocate their bus stand. But since written assurance was then given by M/s. Priya Travels to shift their operation to outside the township, the SDM, Hojai through his order dated 11.4.2007 temporarily permitted the respondent to operate from their private land measuring 2 Katha 10 Lechas until 15.4.2007. But it was specified that after the specified date, the respondent No. 8 will not operate their bus stand in Daboka town. 7. But the aggrieved respondent No. 8 challenged the order of the SDM, Hojai before the Sessions Judge, Nagaon and the learned Court through the judgment dated 23.5.2007 quashed the SDM’s order on the ground that the affected party was denied the opportunity of hearing. Thereafter show-cause-notice was issued on 14.6.2007 to the respondent No. 8 and after considering the reply of the noticee, the SDM, Hojai passed the prohibitory order on 15.3.2008 specifying a No Parking Zone in the encroached roadside areas. It was also specified that no bus stand shall be allowed to operate within the Daboka town area without Trade Licence and due permission from the police authorities. 8. Mr. B. D. Konwar, the learned Counsel submits that the operation of a bus stand in the heart of the congested town is causing huge inconvenience to the town residents. Moreover, since only limited area is available with the respondent No. 8, they are unable to provide any amenity to the transiting passengers travelling by their buses. Supporting the action of the SDM and the Daboka Town Committee, Mr. Konwar submits that the respondent No. 8 is parking most of their buses on the roadside and they do not have any Trade Licence to operate and therefore the bus stand should be relocated to a convenient space outside the congested town area. 9. Representing the respondent No. 8, advocate Mr. Konwar submits that the respondent No. 8 is parking most of their buses on the roadside and they do not have any Trade Licence to operate and therefore the bus stand should be relocated to a convenient space outside the congested town area. 9. Representing the respondent No. 8, advocate Mr. B. Talukdar firstly submits that there are 2/3 other bus operators who are parking their buses within the Daboka town area. The Counsel refers to the Karbi Anglong Bus Stand, Nagaon Bus Stand and the Hojai-Lanka Bus Stand adjacent to the bus stand of the respondent No. 8. The Counsel further contends that M/s. Priya Travels were issued Trade Licence by the Daboka Town Committee and accordingly respondent No. 8 claim that they are operating the bus stand with due authorisation of the Daboka Town Committee. 10. In their turn, the Government Advocate submits that unless the respondent No. 8 obtains an Agents Licence under Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the M.V. Act”) and secure parking permission under Section 117, they can’t be allowed to operate as a bus operator involving of parking of many buses in a congested area. 11. Representing the Daboka Town Committee, advocate Mr. S.C. Biswas argues that the local authority resolved to prohibit parking of buses by all operators and the respondent No. 8 is not the only agency who are being asked to relocate their bus stand outside the town. Mr. Biswas refers to the Town Committee’s resolution dated 9.3.2007 to project that No Parking Zone is specified to the extent of 100 metres from the town police station along the Daboka-Diphu Road and the Nagaon-Lanka Road covered by NH-36 and NH-54 respectively and it is also stipulated by the local authority that the buses should not be allowed to encroach on the roadside land and the Government reserve land. 12. The Assam Motor Vehicles Rules 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the M.V. Rules”) require the Government to permit establishment of wayside amenities for the purpose of parking, halting of passengers vehicles and all permitted parking spaces are required to provide the amenities specified under sub-rule (4) of Rule 93 of the M.V. Rules. 12. The Assam Motor Vehicles Rules 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the M.V. Rules”) require the Government to permit establishment of wayside amenities for the purpose of parking, halting of passengers vehicles and all permitted parking spaces are required to provide the amenities specified under sub-rule (4) of Rule 93 of the M.V. Rules. Maintenance of stoppage and halting stand is provided under Rule 94 and the local authority exercising jurisdiction over a specific area is empowered to give direction for maintenance of cleanliness and hygiene in the specified stoppage area. Under Rule 73, the Regional Transport Authority in consultation with the local authority is competent to permit use of any area for stoppage/halting and for picking up and setting down passengers and can also declare certain specified places as parking/picking up area. 13. But what is noticed in the present case is that the Daboka Town Committee never issued any Trade Licence to M/s. Priya Travels to operate any bus stand in the town area. In fact the money receipt issued to M/s. Priya Travels reflects that the fee was collected to enable the respondent No. 8 to operate a travel counter. But on the strength of the permission for a travel counter, the respondent No. 8 is operating a bus stand encroaching on the roadside land and this certainly is legally impermissible. 14. As regard the permission granted to the respondent No. 8 on 30.9.1991 by the SDO, Hojai, it was clearly specified in the order itself that the respondent No. 8 can’t park beyond the specified area nor they were authorized to encroach the roadside and create obstruction to traffic flow. But the available documents clearly show that the respondent No. 8 is not only parking their buses beyond the specified area but is also encroaching roadside and Government land. This certainly was not authorized by the permission issued to them on 30.9.1991. That apart, the traffic scenario has magnified manifold since last 24 years and therefore the old permission of the SDO can’t have any relevance to the traffic realities of today. 15. This certainly was not authorized by the permission issued to them on 30.9.1991. That apart, the traffic scenario has magnified manifold since last 24 years and therefore the old permission of the SDO can’t have any relevance to the traffic realities of today. 15. Since the respondent No. 8 admittedly was not issued any permission under Rules 73, 93 & 94 of the M.V. Rules, 2003 nor they were granted any licence or permission under Sections 93 and 117 of the M.V. Act, 1988, I am of the considered opinion that the respondent M/s. Priya Travels should not be allowed to operate their bus stand within the Daboka town area and they must relocate their operation as was ordered by the SDM on 15.7.2007. 16. On the nominal fee collected by the town committee from M/s. Priya Travels, it is clarified that the respondent No. 8 can only operate a ticket counter as the concerned Trade Licence doesn’t authorize them to operate bus services from the town area of the Daboka township. 17. Consequently, the State authorities as well as the Daboka Town Committee are directed to ensure that the prohibitory orders issued by the SDM on 15.7.2007 is uniformly applied to all bus operators without any discrimination. With this direction, both petitions stand allowed without any order on cost. 18. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. J. Handique, the learned Government Advocate, Mr. U.R. Saikia, the Standing Counsel, Transport Department and advocate Mr. S.C. Biswas appearing for the Daboka Town Committee for ensuring compliance. Petitions allowed.