@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
A. Arumughaswamy, J.@mdashWhat is challenged under this Writ Petition is the order of the 4th respondent made in R.P. No. 18 of 2004 dated 17.10.2006, confirming the order of the 1st respondent made in R. No. 58978/A3/2003 dated 17.3.2004. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:
a. The petitioner is operating one stage carriage service bearing Registration No. TN 59/T 7077 on the route Madurai to Velerandal via Thirupuvanam, Thiruppachethi, Kalloorani, Padmathur Cross, Sivagangai, Nattarasankottai, Kollangudi, Kalayarkoil and Maravamangalam with IST in between Madurai to Velarendal (via) Thirupuvanam, Poovanthi, Padmathur Cross, Sivagangai, Nattarasankottai, Kollngudi, Kalayarkoil and Maravamangalam. The Mattudhavani bus stand in Madurai was approved by the 1st respondent as early as in the year 1999 and the buses terminating at Anna Bus Stand in Madurai were directed to operate from Mattudhavani Bus Stand.
b. While so, the 1st respondent issued an order dated 26.7.2001 allotting platform to various sector operators. In the said order, for the buses going via Sivagangai from Madurai, Platform No. 3 was allotted and for the buses going via Manamadurai, Platform No. 5 was allotted. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to use Platform No. 3. But the 2nd respondent asked the petitioner to use the platform No. 5 which is meant for vehicles going via Manamadurai.
c. In this regard, the petitioner sent a representation to the 1st respondent to take action against the Transport Corporation and to pass orders allotting Platform No. 3. But, without considering the grievance of the petitioner, the 1st respondent passed an order directing the petitioner to make use of only the 5th platform. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed a Revision before the 4th respondent and obtained an interim order and continued to use the said Platform No. 3.
d. In the meantime, one of the operators filed an impleading petition in the Revision and has got impleaded as 3rd respondent and thereafter, after hearing both sides, the Revision Petition was dismissed by an order dated 17.10.2006 confirming the order of the 1st respondent. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though the 1st respondent has passed orders on 26.7.2001 allotting Platform No. 3 to the buses plying via Sivagangai from Madurai and platform No. 5 to the buses playing via Manamadurai and though the petitioner''s bus bearing Registration No. TN 59/T 7077 is plying via Sivagangai from Madrai, Platform No. 5 was allotted to him. He would further submit that the 4th respondent has also confirmed the order of the 1st respondent in Revision without considering the 1st respondent order dated 26.7.2001. Hence, the impugned order has to be set aside.
3. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent would contend that the order of the 1st respondent dated 19.3.2004 is in order. Hence, the present Writ Petition has to be dismissed.
4. No representation for the respondents 2 to 4 from 6.11.2013 onwards even though the matter has been listed under the caption, ''for orders''. Further, since the matter has been pending from 2007 onwards, this Court is left with no other option except to dispose of the same on merits with the available records.
4(a). The point arises for consideration is:
Who is the authority to allot racks in the bus-stand maintained by the local authority?
Held: Only by the local authority not by the Transport Corporation.
5. On a perusal of the records, it is not in dispute that the bus of the petitioner was proceeding from Madurai to Velerandal via Thirupuvanam, Thiruppachethi, Kalloorani, Padmathur Cross, Sivagangai, Nattarasankottai, Kollangudi, Kalayarkoil and Maravamangalam with IST in between Madurai to Velarendal (via) Thirupuvanam, Poovanthi, Padmathur Cross, Sivagangai, Nattarasankottai, Kollngudi, Kalayarkoil and Maravamangalam. Hence, as per the order of the 1st respondent dated 26.7.2001, the platform No. 3 has to be allotted to him. It further appears that in an identical case, for another operator, platform No. 3 was allotted by the 1st respondent by order dated 9.7.1999.
6. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to use the platform No. 3 since his bus is plying via Sivagangai from Madurai as per the order of the 1st respondent. The 2nd and 4th respondents have no authority to allot a bay in the platform to the other bus operator. The 2nd respondent is a rival bus operator to the Private bus operator who is the Writ Petitioner. Allotting a bay for the user of the bus stand is only the duty of the local authority or the authority which is having right to collect the fee from the users such as the owner of the vehicle.
7. Under such circumstances how the local authority can delegate the power to allot the bay to the rival operator. It is common knowledge that at the time of allotting the bus rack one must bear in mind that it should be allotted only to the buses plying on the specified direction. The buses, which are all plying in multiple directions cannot be on rack to use to suit the convenience of the second respondent or the 2nd respondent alone cannot be allowed to use the exclusive rack for his operation of the bus since bus stand fee is collected from all the operators and the 2nd respondent alone is not paying any additional fee for his exclusive usage which is in deviation of the Tamil Nadu M.V. Rules 245(j) which is extracted here under:
245(j).The person employed at the stand maintained by the Local Authority:-
(i) shall be responsible for maintaining the stand in a serviceable, clean and sanitary condition.
(ii) shall maintain such records and submit such returns as may be specified by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority.
Therefore, hereafter allotting the bay in the bus stand, it is the duty of the local authority, who is expected to maintain the bus stand as per the provisions of the T.N.M.V. Rules. Any deviation is brought to the knowledge of this Court, it will be seriously viewed against the Commissioner of the Local Authority. Hence, the impugned order has to be set aside.
In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
