Amitava Roy, C.J.@mdashHeard Mr. B.P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. J. Pal, learned Standing Counsel for O.P. No. 1-State Transport Authority, Odisha (for short, hereinafter referred as ''the STA''), Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2-Odisha State Road Transport Corporation (for short, hereinafter referred as ''the OSRTC), Mr. B.K. Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. P.K. Nayak, learned counsel for O.P. No. 7-Regional Sub-Divisional Private Bus Owners'' Association, Athagarh).
2. The present petition presented as a Public Interest Litigation seeks a direction to the opposite party Nos. 1 to 6 to restrict the opposite party No. 7 from creating hindrances and obstruction to the entrance of the private buses and other transport vehicles into the OSRTC Bus Stand, Athagarh and also requiring the opposite party Nos. 1 to 6 to take legal action against the O.P. No. 7 and its associates indulging in such obstructive activities.
3. The petitioner, who has introduced himself to be a social activist, has pleaded that the OSRTC had for the purpose of constructing a Bus Stand at Athagarh availed land measuring to an extent of Ac 1.60 dec. from the Revenue Department of the State on lease vide Lease Case No. 10/1981 whereafter the Bus Stand was constructed by it and it was made operational with all incidental basic facilities. To augment revenue the Bus Stand was thereafter allotted in favour of the Athagarh Notified Area Council (for short, hereinafter referred to as ''the NAC'') on execution of agreement for collection of parking fees from the bus owners and for maintenance of the Bus Stand from the income. The NAC not having paid any parking fee as per the agreement to the OSRTC, the allotment was cancelled on 09.12.2010. The OSRTC thereafter on 10.12.2010 invited open tender for licensing the said Land/Bus Stand, Athagarh for the purpose of collection of parking fees from private buses for a period of 36 months. In the tender process, the opposite party No. 8 was declared to be the successful bidder and after due negotiation he agreed to pay monthly rent @ 6,100/- p.m. from collection of parking fees from the vehicles enter and that would be parked in the Bus Stand and also undertook to provide sanitation work and other ancillary facilities. Accordingly allotment order was issued on 15.01.2011 for a period of 3 years.
4. According to the petitioner, the opposite party No. 8 fixed parking fees of Rs. 15.00 per bus per day excluding the OSRTC and other Government vehicles. The opposite party No. 7 being the unsuccessful bidder in the tender process, deliberately did not allow the private buses and other transport vehicles to park inside the Bus Stand and instead the buses and transport vehicles were made to be parked on the public road, government plot by forcibly and illegally collecting parking fees. The parking of the private buses and transport vehicles on the public road resulted in great inconvenience to the general public and such forcible collection of the parking fees by the opposite party No. 8 resulted in loss to the State exchequer. The petitioner has further pleaded that faced with the increasing inconvenience due to parking of private buses and transport vehicles on the public roads, the public spirited persons including social activists submitted representations before the jurisdictional Sub-Collector and other functionaries on several dates requesting them to take appropriate action to clear the roads of such encroachment and to secure safe passage to the commuting public and the passengers in general.
5. The issue also received wide media coverage highlighting the public inconvenience and hazards to public safety. According to petitioner as in spite of several initiatives no action has been taken, he has turned to this Court to redress.
6. The opposite party No. 1-Commissioner-cum-Chairman, STA, Odisha, Cuttack in his counter has averred that he is not the regulating authority of the OSRTC Bus Stand and opposite party No. 7 is also not governed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules framed thereunder and thus he (O.P. No. 1) was not empowered under the law to take any legal action against them (O.P. No. 7 and its associates).
7. The answering opposite party pleaded that it was the responsibility of the OSRTC to maintain its business and he was no way concerned therewith. Reference was made to earlier writ petitions i.e. W.P. (C). Nos. 8667, 4809 and 7390 of 2011 and Contempt Case No. 2172/2011 and CONTC No. 1906 of 2012 since disposed of on 12.11.2012, in which the opposite party No. 1 was impleaded.
8. The opposite party No. 5, then functioning as the Inspector-in-Charge of the Athagarh Police Station in his counter has, in substance, stated that on receipt of the notice from this Court in the instant proceedings, police personnel were deputed near the bus stand to ensure that there was no hindrance to the private Buses in entering the bus stand. According to this opposite party, no report of obstruction was made by any owner/driver/helper of the private buses regarding entry thereof into the Bus Stand. Reference has been made to a meeting held on 10.04.2012 under the Chairmanship of Hon''ble Minister of Commerce & Transport in which it was decided that the OSRTC shall take necessary steps for execution of agreement with the NAC, Athagarh and also issue notice to opposite party No. 8 for cancellation of the agreement due to non-compliance of terms and conditions thereof and for non-payment of the agreed dues to the OSRTC. It has also been stated that the police is keeping a vigil over the Bus Stand and till date not a single report has been received on obstruction of roads or any attempt to that effect.
9. Whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner has insisted for judicial intervention contending that the activities of the opposite party No. 7 in obstructing the entry of private Buses and other transport vehicles to the Bus Stand are continuing unabated, resulting in unimaginable inconvenience to the commuting passengers and the public in general, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 7 have stoutly refuted the imputation made to this effect.
10. We have traversed the pleadings and also have taken into account the arguments advanced with reference to relevant records. Records reveal that on the same issue, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had heard and disposed of the above referred proceedings being W.P. (C). Nos. 8667, 4809 and 7390 of 2011 and CONTC No. 2172/2011 and CONTC No. 1906/2012 by an order dated 12.11.2012. It is noticed, amongst others that in W.P. (C). Nos. 8667 and 4809 of 2011, the present opposite party No. 8 was the petitioner. He had in fact sought for a writ of mandamus to the opposite party therein to remove and/or demolish the unauthorized Bus Stand constructed by the opposite party No. 6 therein (O.P. No. 7 in the instant petition) on P.W.D. Roads and public roads and to issue a direction to park its (O.P. No. 7) buses in the OSRTC Bus Stand leased out to him. Their Lordships on a threadbare consideration of the pleadings laid in those proceedings and referring, in particular, to the counter filed by the opposite party No. 2-Sub-Collector, Athagarh to the effect that the private buses and transport vehicles, as alleged, were not being parked on public road resulting any congestion or inconvenience to any general public and that the buses were being parked in an open place near the OSRTC Bus Stand, which was a portion of Taxi Stand, Athagarh, declined the relief as prayed for.
11. It was held, with reference to the records, that portion of the Taxi Stand was earmarked for parking of private buses where basic facilities to the passengers were also made available. It was held as well that the buses operated by the private owners had no nexus with the OSRTC, who itself ran several buses and had properties in almost all the districts where it used to park its vehicles and that such Bus Stands were used exclusively by the OSRTC. Their Lordships were of the view that it was thus not necessary that all the Buses that pass through Athagarh should enter the OSRTC Bus Stand and pay fees to the licensee thereof.
12. Apart from the fact that the issue now raised in the instant proceedings has since been finally adjudicated already by this Court, it is patent that no new fact has been pleaded or brought to our notice to depart from the conclusions already recorded in the earlier proceedings. Further, the categorical plea of the opposite party No. 5 adverted hereinabove, that no case/instance of obstruction of any private bus or transport vehicle entering into the OSRTC Bus Stand has been reported and that the police is maintaining a constant vigil, ought not to be lightly overlooked.
13. We are thus of the opinion that no writ or direction as sought for in the instant writ petition in the above factual background is needed. We are, however, dismayed by the statement made by the opposite party No. 1-Commissioner-cum-Chairman, STA, Odisha, Cuttack in dissociating a statutory authority in all manner from the functioning of the OSRTC Bus Stand and plying of private buses under the aegis of opposite party No. 7. As the State Transport Authority, Odisha, Cuttack, under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is entrusted with statutory as well as public duties, it is duty bound and is obligated to regulate all activities pertaining to public transport and to ensure safety, security and convenience of the commuting public in all respects. It is also, in our comprehension, within the purview of its duty to take needful steps wherever necessary, with the help of other statutory authorities, to provide congestion free traffic by enforcing regulatory measures to curb indisciplined conduct of vehicles in a public place.
The instant proceeding is closed with the above observation.
