IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.631 of 2008 Daya Nand Singh, Son of late Kapildeo Singh, resident of Village, Post and Police Station-Mahua, District-Vaishali. … … Intervener Respondents .. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chairman, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bihar, Patna. 2. North Bihar Regional Transport Authority, Muzaffarpur through its Secretary. 3. The District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur. 4. The Additional Collector, Hajipur, District-Vaishali. 5. Sheo Kumar Singh, Son of Shri Baldeo Singh, resident of village-Mahua, Singhrai, P.S.-Mahua, District-Vaishali. … … Respondents ….Respondents 6. Manoj Kumar, Son of Ram Bilash Rai, resident of village- Mirjanagar, P.S.-Mahua, District-Vaishali. … … Writ Petitioner …. Respondents 7. Binod Ram, son of Sakaldeep Ram, Resident of village- Alipur Mukund, P.S.-Mahua, District-Vaishali. …… Intervener Respondent No.6-Respondents 8. Rajesh Kumar Singh, son of Baldeo Singh, resident of village-Mahua, Singhrai, P.S.-Mahua, District-Vaishali. …… Intervener Respondent No.7-Respondents 9. Bipin Kumar, S/o Sri Raj Ballav Singh, resident of vill- Sahwajpur-Puraina, P.S. Patepur, District-Vaishali. …… Intervener Respondent No.8-Respondents ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Dhirendra Nath Jha, Advocate For the respondent No.4 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Navendu Kumar, Advocate -------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------ Dated, the 04th December, 2008 This Letters Patent Appeal is wholly misconceived, - 2 - misplaced and not maintainable. That the appellant was not party to the writ petition is admitted by the appellant. His application for intervention also came to be rejected by the Single Judge. It is pertinent to notice that two writ petitions were filed, one, by Manoj Kumar and the other by Sheo Kumar Singh aggrieved by the order dated 16th March, 2007 passed by the Chairman, State Transport Tribunal in Transport Revision Cases no. 37/2006 and 39/2006. That the appellant is not even a party in either of the two revision applications before the State Transport Tribunal is admitted by the counsel. If that be so, the appellant is not at all aggrieved by the impugned order. 2. The counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the following paragraph of the impugned judgment: “However, what I find that during the pendency of these two writ applications the offers were invited by the authorities for running Mahua bus stand. On account of pendency of criminal case Shiv Kumar Singh did not fulfil eligibility criteria as such he did not submit his offer. However, Manoj Kumar participated and submitted his offer. Other persons who are intervenors also submitted their offers and enquiry was conducted as per rule under the provisions of M.V.Act. The District Magistrate submitted its recommendation to the N.B.R.T.A whereby offer of respondent no.6 Binod Ram was found suitable for running the bus stand and it was accepted. The District Magistrate, Vaishali reconsidered his case and the N.B.R.T.A. by dated 7.11.2007 directed the District Magistrate to take steps for executing agreement with respondent no.6 for running the bus stand. This order on account of stay order dated 22.2.2008 has not been implemented. N.B.R.T.A is the competent authority for passing any order under the provisions of Section 117 of Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 1999 of M.V.Rules. A bus stand can be established only by Regional Transport Authority, as he is only competent to declare an area as bus stand after - 3 - observing the provisions under the M.V.Act. Since this exercise has already been done by the competent authority and land of respondent no.7 Binod Kumar has been found to be suitable for declaring as bus stand, I find that it should not be disturbed going into the technicalities. The respondent authority can proceed in this matter in accordance with law.” 3. It needs no emphasis that the Single Judge herself has clarified that the authority shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law. If any revision application filed by the appellant is pending before the competent authority, it has to be decided on its own merit. 4. Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil