IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No. 9068 of 2007 MD.ALLAUDDIN & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No. 5997 of 2008 ZILA PARISHAD, VAISHALI & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- (In CWJC No. 9068 of 2007) For the Petitioner: Mr. T.N. Maitin Mr. Ramadhar Singh For the Party Respondents: Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur Mr. Navendu Kumar For the State: Mr. J.P. Karn, A.A.G. IX (In CWJC No. 5997 of 2008) For the Petitioner: Mr. Shrinandan Pd. Singh Mr. Ashok Kumar No. 1 For the Private Respondents: Mr. T.N. Maitin Mr. Ramadhar Singh For the State: Mr. Ritesh Kumar, J.C. to A.A.G. I 07 28.07.2008 These two writ petitions are being taken up for the purpose of final disposal at the stage of admission itself with the consent of parties. The dispute is with regard to the location of Jandaha bus stand in the district of Vaishali and who is to establish and manage the same. It appears, initially, Pawan Kumar Jha (Respondent No. 7) in CWJC No. 9068 of 2007 was able to persuade the writ petitioners and 2 Respondent No. 8 to enter into partnership with him for establishing and running a bus stand at Jandaha, which was accordingly in consultation with the District Magistrate as envisaged under Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with Rule 191 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules accepted and notified in the year 1996 by the Regional Transport Authority, Muzaffarpur. The bus stand was adjacent to the State High Way connecting Muzaffarpur to Hazipur and Near Hazipur-Samastipur road. It may be noted here that the bus stand was established on the land of the petitioners and Respondent No. 8 and virtually Respondent No. 7 was the managing partner to this partnership but he had not land of his own. It appears that in 2001 the District Magistrate made a recommendation that the bus stand should be settled with the Zila Parishad as it had various revenue implications. This recommendation was received and approved by the North Bihar Regional Transport Authority, Muzaffarpur in its meeting on 31.07.2001. Respondent No. 7 was obviously aggrieved. He challenged the same before the State Transport 3 Appellate Tribunal, Bihar, in Revision No. 14 of 2003, which set aside the order holding that before the North Bihar Regional Transport Authority took a decision to permit the Zila Parishad to set up the bus stand, Respondent No. 7 should have been heard. Thus, the matter came back to the North Bihar Regional Transport Authority. By this time a lot of water had flowed through Ganga. The petitioners, whose lands were basically used as the bus stand, purported to dissolve the partnership and revoke the power of attorney given in favour of Respondent No. 7. They resumed possession of their land from Respondent No. 7. They entered into an agreement with the Zila Parishad and gave their lands to the Zila Parishad for being used as bus stand. The matter then was taken up by the North Bihar Regional Transport Authority. This time the Regional Transport Authority noticing the changes reaffirmed their earlier order holding that Respondent No. 7 was no more in the possession of the land and the earlier decision could now be operative. The effect was that the bus stand was to be established and run by the Zila Parishad on the land of the writ 4 petitioners with their consent. A very small portion of land belonged to Respondent No. 8, who was with the Respondent No. 7. The Respondent No. 7 then went back to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, who noticing that the earlier decision of the North Bihar Regional Transport Authority had been set aside, directed the District Magistrate, Vaishali to relook into the entire matter and relocate the bus stand. It is against this order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal that both the Zila Parishad and the petitioners have filed the two writ petitions. On behalf of petitioners a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed today, which in my view, substantially changes the situation, as noticed above. The land of the writ petitioners and that of Respondent No. 8 are given for the purposes of the bus stand. Land of Respondent No. 8 was only about two decimals and that too at the side of entry point, the rest of the bus stand was situated on the land of the petitioners. In the supplementary counter affidavit, it is now stated, accompanied by affidavit sworn by the 5 son of Respondent No. 8, stating that Respondent No. 8 has been totally incapacitated because of paralysis. His land is ancestral land, son of Respondent No. 8 has now joined the writ petitioners and has agreed to give the land to the Zila Parishad for the purposes of the said bus stand. The effect now is that Pawan Kumar Jha (Respondent No. 7) is fighting a losing battle left with no land. The entire land is now open to use, undisputedly, by the Zila Parishad. Mr. T.N. Maitin, learned counsel for the writ petitioners and learned counsel for the Zila Parishad submit that now no dispute subsist. The Zila Parishad had been authorized to establish the bus stand. The Respondent No. 7 has now lost all locus in the matter as he has no land. Whatsoever, once the District Magistrate-Cum-Collector had recommended and authorized the Zila Parishad to establish the bus stand and its recommendation accepted by the North Bihar Regional Transport Authority in terms of Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with Rule 191 of the Bihar Rules, the matter should end as Zila Parishad is in possession of land with the raiyats agreeing to 6 give land to the Zila Parishad. Having considered the matter and taken note of the subsequent events, in my view, Respondent No. 7 has now lost locus standi in the matter. Zila Parishad has now joined hands with the writ petitioners and virtually Respondent No. 8. That being so it would be proper to rest the matter at this stage. Zila Parishad would continue to establish, run and manage the bus stand so long as Respondent No. 8 and the writ petitioners consent to it. In this view of the matter, the order of the Regional Transport Authority to relocate the bus stand because of any dispute does not survive any more. The two writ petitions, thus, stand disposed of accordingly. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)