IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15323 of 2009 1. MD.SADAKAT S/O LATE MD. LIYAKAT AT WARD NO. 05, TOWN , MADHEPURA, P.S. MADHEPURA, DISTT- MADHEPURA 2. CHHEDI MANDAL S/O SHRI RAUDI MANDAL AT &P.O. COLLEGE CHOWK, WARD NO. 10, P.S.MADHEPURA, DISTT- MADHEPURA. WITH CWJC No.11873 of 2009 AMIT KUMAR, SON OF DR. G.S. RAM, SECRETARY, ZILA AUTO RIKSHA SANGH, MADHEPURA, P.S.-MADHEPURA, DISTRICT- MADHEPURA. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT , PATNA 2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY SAHARSA, REGIONAL OFFICE , SONE BHAWAN , 4TH FLOOR, 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MADHEPURA. 5. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT BOARD, MADHEPURA. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Badri Narayan Singh, Adv. Mrs. Renu Jha. For the State : AC to SC-11 & AC to AAG-IX. For the Zila Parishad : Mrs. B. Singh. For the Municipal Cor- : Mr. Raju Giri. poration, Madhepura. ----------- 05 06.05.2010 The controversies in both these cases as raised by the petitioners is with regard to authority to levy fee for using bus stand and halting station and/or at bus stop and - 2 - halting station. The first is with regard to Madhepura and the second is with regard to Singheshwar. Before proceeding, I may note controversy amongst the respondents, which this Court is not deciding as it has to be decided inter-party in duly constituted proceedings for this purpose. That is, who is the true owner of the said bus stand or bus stop. Whether it is the Zila Parishad or is it the Municipality? Zila Parishad and Municipality are both local self-government and it is for the State of Bihar to decide the issue inter se and resolve their rights. This Court would not enter into that dispute in these writ petitions. Petitioners firstly in case of Madhepura states that pursuant to notification issued by the Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as RTA), Saharsa in terms of Rule 191 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1992 has notified the place as a bus stand-cum-halting station. That place has been established by the Zila Parishad, who is maintaining the same. The grievance is, while RTA notified the place and licensed the Zila Parishad, it did not prescribe the fee to be paid by the owners of public service vehicles using the said place as contemplated by Rule 191(2)(i) of - 3 - the Rules and the Zila Parishad on its own has fixed certain rates, which are being charged. The rates not having been prescribed by the RTA, the levy and collection of such charges by Zila Parishad becomes unauthorized. The second case relates to Singheshwar where a Nagar Panchayat exists. The RTA has notified a place along the road as a bus stop-cum-halting station. There is also the Zila Parishad and not the Nagar Panchayat has fixed fees to be realized without it being prescribed by the RTA. In this case, the second objection is that this place being a bus stop-cum-halting station, it would not be covered by Rule 191 and, thus, there could be no charging of fee at all. As stands have been taken by the local authorities and the State, with consent of parties, the writ petitions have been heard for its disposal at this stage itself. So far as the case with regard to Madhepura is concerned, it offers little difficulty. It is not in dispute that it is RTA, who in terms of Rule 191 has notified it as bus stand-cum-halting station. Whether the Zila Parishad or the Nagar Panchayat whoever be the true owner thereof, they - 4 - are compensated for the services provided by them for compensation in terms of Rule 191(2)(i) would be at the rate prescribed by the RTA, but it appears that the RTA forgot its duties. It has left it to the local authorities to do it. Unfortunately, the law is otherwise. It was incumbent upon the RTA to prescribe the fee. This is so because RTA is a bigger organization and supervises movement of vehicles on regional basis. It is to see the over all impact and, thus, can be said to be a macro organization, as compared to macro organization of a local self government or a local authority. But, at the same time, if we look to the provisions of either the Municipal Act or the Panchayat Raj Act, the local authorities are entitled to levy fee and charges for the services they provide in terms. That is not subject to control by any other authority, but, if we kept the concept of the macro and the micro authority a harmonious construction is possible and that would be that the local authority would determine the fee but that would be subject to approval/ratification by the RTA, in absence whereof, the local authority cannot levy and/or realize the charge in this manner. Both the statutes would have equal play and both - 5 - the authorities would exercise their rights without their being a conflict or a denudation of authority. Thus, the position at Madhepura stands resolved accordingly and the RTA must act with promptitude in this manner. Now, when we come to Singheshwar, the notification of RTA notifies it as a bus stop-cum-halting station. The argument is that so far as bus stops are concerned, they are place of transit along the road and no charges can be levied on public service vehicles stooping there to offload or to take passengers, because if this is permissible at every such stoppage all along the route, charges would be paid by way of illustration. If a bus starts from Gandhi Maidan bus stop at Patna for Railway Station at Patna and stops at South Gandhi Maidan, Frazer Road, Dak Bungalow crossing and then Railway Station then at each of those places the bus would have to pay a fee that is not the law. Further, bus stops are to be notified by the local authority and not RTA. Keeping these in mind, one has read what was, in fact, notified by the RTA. In my view, what RTA meant was a bus stand-cum-halting station even at Singheshwar. The distinction between bus stand - 6 - and bus stop is, bus stand and bus stop is terminus whereas bus stop is transitory point. Mr. Singh for the petitioners submits that though it may be a bus stand, there are two types of services which pass through it. One which used it as a terminus, the other which it used as a transitory point. His submission is that the fee charged from the two cannot be the same. They utilize the services entirely in different manner. One terminates or originates and, thus, remains there for a long period as a bus stand. The other touches that places and within minutes moves away, he uses it as bus stop. The law does not permit levy of fee in respect of bus stop. It authorizes levy of fee in respect of bus stand. In my view, the distinction as drawn cannot be ignored. There is a purpose behind it. This is what the authority would have to consider the appropriate authority in that regard would be again the RTA. Thus, the RTA would have to determine this aspect of the matter after hearing the local authority and the recognized transporters associations. The decisions both with regard to Madhepura and Singheshwar would be taken by RTA at the earliest not - 7 - later than one month from today because this problem that is occurring every day. For the period till a decision is taken by the RTA, the present system will be tolerated to be permitted. With these observations and directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)