THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.24833 of 2006 Dated: 02.07.2010 Between: C.Balaji Badrinath Rowjee and others. .. Petitioners. And Adoni Municipality, Adoni, Rep. by its Commissioner, Kurnool District, And others. .. Respondents, ORDER: Petitioners are owners of private buses and plying in Adoni Sector Inter-State routes. They state themselves and other private bus operators of Adoni town, are provided with the existing old bus stand in Adoni Town, for the convenience of general public, and private operators in particular. That they are also paying fee for parking their vehicles even though there is no statutory obligation. While so, they state that the 1st respondent viz., Adoni Municipality, took a unilateral decision for closure of the existing bus stand on the ground of traffic congestion. Aggrieved by such action, the petitioners claim to have submitted representations on 19.09.2006, 26.10.2006 and 24.11.2006 to the respondents requesting them to defer their decision of shifting the existing bus stand till suitable alternative site for parking their vehicles, is provided. However, the petitioners state that the 1st respondent without considering their request, decided to close down the existing bus stand and, at the instance of the 1st respondent, the police are not allowing the petitioners to park their buses at the existing bus stand and are harassing them. The petitioners contend that under Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the power to earmark areas for the purpose of bus stands, for parking motor vehicles, is vested with the State Government or the other authority to be specified by them, and while such power is vested in the transport authority under Section 96(2)(xxi) and (xxii) and Rule 257 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Thus, the petitioners contend that the unilateral decision taken by the 1st respondent to close down the existing private bus stand, is without jurisdiction. Contending so, the petitioners filed the present writ petition to declare that the 1st respondent has no authority to close down the existing bus stand without the approval of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the parking of their vehicles in the existing bus stand. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed separate counters. In the counter, respondent No.1 while denying the material allegations made by the petitioners, contended that with a view to ease the traffic congestion and deal with air and sound pollution in Adoni town, a Traffic Advisory Committee, was formed, which held seminars and meetings on 06.01.2006, 05.02.006, 14.02.2006 and 16.09.2006, by inviting representatives of all political parties, Government and Non- Government Organizations, Revenue, Police, Press, T.V., associations of transport, merchants, business people, trade unions, media etc., and sought their co-operation, in solving the traffic and pollution problems. Based on the outcome of the seminars and meetings, and as advised by the Traffic Advisory Committee, the Municipal Council of Adoni, has passed a resolution on 19.09.2006, for shifting the existing bus stand to some other place, and the same was even published in all daily news papers. It is contended that they have also held separate meeting with the private bus owners, including the petitioners on 29.10.2006, wherein all of them have agreed for shifting of the existing bus stand to some other place. It is further contended that the present decision to shift the existing bus stand to some other place, has been taken in the interest of one and all, and to protect the interests of the people of the locality, a new private bus stand, near to the existing bus stand, has already started on Alur road near IBP Petrol Bunk, and the public also started using the same. He thus prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Respondent No.2 in the counter filed by him stated that under Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the State Government would make rules in consultation with the local authority having jurisdiction in the area for determining the place at which the motor vehicles may stand either indefinitely or for a specified period of time for taking up and setting down the passengers, and as per Rules 256 and 257 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, the transport authority may in consultation with the local authority, setup the bus stops as required, for the purpose of setting down or taking up the passengers. It is also stated that the 1st respondent has unilaterally passed a resolution for setting up a new bus stand for the convenience of the general public and to control congestion of the vehicular traffic and, as such, the shifting of the bus stand, cannot be said to have been made in contravention of any of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act or the rules made thereunder. It is further stated that the bus stand, which is being claimed by the petitioners, has never been notified by their authority under any circumstances and the new bus stand identified by the 1st respondent has neither been sanctioned nor approved by them and, as such, this authority has nothing to do with regard to the shifting of the bus stand and the plea of the petitioners that the approval of the Road Transport Authority is compulsory, for shifting the bus stand, does not stand for the reason that Rule 257 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules is only directory and not mandatory. It is stated that the petitioners are entitled to make a representation before the Government of Andhra Pradesh, as it is the competent authority under Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and it is also prerogative of the Municipality to safeguard the interests of the public at large. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd and 3rd respondents. Though the petitioners contend that the 1st respondent has no power to take unilateral decision to close down the existing bus stand in Adoni town, the fact remains, it is the specific case of the 1st respondent that due to parking of vehicles in the existing bus stand, traffic congestion and air and noise pollution is being caused, and that to solve the traffic congestion and air and sound pollution problems, they have constituted a Traffic Advisory Committee, which held seminars and meetings, as indicated in the counter, with all concerned, and based on the recommendations of the Traffic Advisory Committee, decision to shift the existing bus stand to some other place has been taken, and that after taking such decision, they have also held meetings with the private bus operators, including the petitioners, wherein they are said to have agreed for shifting of the existing bus stand to some other place. The petitioners did not deny this stand taken by the 1st respondent in the counter. In fact, it is the further case of the 1st respondent, that a new private bus stand has already been started, which is near the existing bus stand, on Alur road near IBP Petrol Bunk, and that the general public are and other private bus operators are using the same. Be that as it may, the requirements of establishing new bus stands or closing of the existing ones and establishing new ones, are matters for the administrative authorities to consider, which are normally considered keeping in view host of factors, namely traffic movement, number of vehicles that come to the bus stand, number of people who use it, convenience of the general public, easy movement of vehicles, etc. Since in the instant case, the 1st respondent has taken a decision to shift the existing bus stand to some other place, after holding deliberations with all concerned, including the petitioners and based on the recommendations of the Traffic Advisory Committee, which had taken note of the public interest and the traffic congestion and air and sound pollution that is being caused by the vehicles, at the present place, I am of the considered opinion, no interference is warranted with such decision of the 1st respondent, and more particularly when it is the specific case of the 2nd respondent that the existing old bus stand claimed by the petitioners was not notified by them, and that shifting of the existing bus stand to a new place by the 1st respondent, did not contravene any of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act or the Rules made thereunder. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA,J 02.07.2010 v v/ksr