- (1.) V. N. Khare, J. Petitioner claims to be an Union of private operators allegedly holding permit for plying motor vehicles on the routes between Allahabad-Pratapgarh and Allahabad-Kunda. It claims to have set up a bus stand at the site adjoining Purshottam Das Tandon Park, Civil Lines, Allahabad. The State Government by its order dated 23rd Jully, 1979 and letter dated 21st September, 1978 contained in Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition respectively directed the District Magistrate, Allahabad, not to permit any one to halt or stop vehicles within radius of one km. from the bus stand of the U. P. State Roadways Transport Corporation. It appears that in pursuance of those letters, the District Magistrate, Allahabad took action by not permitting the petitioner to halt or park motor vehicles at the site adjoin ing Purshottam Das Tandon Park, Civil Lines, Allahabad in view of the facts that the bus stand of U. P. State Roadways Transport Corporation is situated within radius of one km. from the site where the petitioner has set up its bus stand. It is at this juncture that the petitioner approached this Court by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE petitioner prays for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to compel the petitioner's association to shift its bus stand situate at Purshottam Das Tandon Park, Civil Lines, Allahabad. A further prayer in this petition is to direct the respondent State not to enforce letters dated 23rd July, 1979 and 2tst September, 1978, whereby the private operators have not been permitted to halt their vehicles within a radius of one km. from the bus stand of U. P. State Roadways Transport Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's association has fixed their bus stand at the present site and the State Govern ment has no authority or jurisdiction to issue such direction under Section 76 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred as the Act, 1939) which corresponds to Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the new Act) and in view of said legal position, the State Government or District Magistrate, Allahabad cannot direct the petitioner to shift its bus stand from the present site. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that it is only the Regional Transport Authority which can fix and notify a place to be used as bus stand as provided under Section 68 (2) (r) of the Act, 1939. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the peti tioner has relied upon a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Hari Om Gautam v. District Magistrate, Mathura, AIR 1987 SC 1939. For appreciating the arguments of the learned counsel for the peti tioner it is necessary to extract the provisions of Section 76 of the Act, 1939 which corresponds to Section 117 of the new Act. Section 76 of the Act, 1939 runs as follows: "sec. 76. Parking places and halting stations.- The State Govern ment or any authority authorised in this behalf by the State Government may in consultation with the local authority having jurisdiction in the area concerned, determine places at which motor vehicles may stand either indefinitely or for a specified period of time, and may determine the places at which public service vehicles may stop for a longer time than is necessary for the taking up and setting down of passengers. " Section 68 (2) (r) of the Act, 1939 which corresponds to Section 96 of the new Act runs as follows : "68 (2) (r) prohibiting the picking up or setting down of passengers by stage or contract carriages at specific places or in specified areas or at places other than duly notified stands or halting places and requiring the driver or a stage carriages to stop and remain stationary for a reasonable time when so required by a passenger desiring to board or alight from the vehicle at a notified halting place. " A perusal of the provisions referred to above shows that the determination of parking and halting places are not the same as bus stand. In fact both are two different expressions and contemplate two different situations. Section 76 of the Act, 1939 provides for parking and halting places whereas Sec. 68 (2) (r) of the Act, 1939 provides for bus stand, In the case of T. B. Ibrahim v. Regional Transport Authority Tanjore, AIR 1953 SC 79 the Supreme Court was of the view that the expression duly notified stand in Section 68 (2) (r) of the Act means a stand duly notified by Transport Authority and not a stand notified by the Municipality within whose jurisdiction the area was situated. In the case of Municipal Board Pushkar v. State Transport Authority Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 458 the Apex Court held that Section 76 of the Act, 1939 does not empower the State Government to fix a bus stand and in fact the power to issue notification fixing a bus stand is implied in Sec tion 68 (2) (r) of the Act, 1939 which would be exercised by the Regional Transport Authority having jurisdiction over the area. In Hari Om Gautam v. District Magistrate Mathura, AIR 1987 SC 1939 it was held that the State Government or the District Magistrate has power under Section 76 of the Act, 1939 to determine the parking places and halting places which are not the same as bus stand which can be only notified by the Regional Transport Autho rity. In view of these decisions it is evident that halting places and bus stand are the two different expressions and operate differently. Halting places for vehicles can be fixed by the State Government or by local authority under Sec tion 76 of the Act, 1939 where as bus stand can be fixed by Regional Transport Authority under Section 68 (2) (r) of the Act, 1939, Thus, in view of the provisions of Section 76 of the Act, 1939 the State Government is well within its power to issue a direction that no one shall stop their vehicles within a radius of one km. from the bus stand of U. P. State Roadways Transport Corporation.
(3.) NOW we would like to advert on petitioner's right to set up its bus stand on the site adjoining Purshottam Das Tandon Park, Allahabad. As seen in foregoing paragraph, it is only the Regional Transport Authority which has power to fix bus stand and not the State Government or any local authority. Admittedly the bus stand which is alleged to have been sot up by the petitioner has not been set up and notified by the Regional Transport Authority, Allahabad in exercise of its power conferred by Section 68 (2) (r) of the Act, 1939. In view of this the point on which learned counsel for the petitioner has built up his arguments does not exist in the present case. In fact the petitioner's alleged bus stand is totally unauthorised and illegal and it is liable to be shifted from the present site in view of the direction of the State Government to the District Magistrate, Allahabad. In view of what has been stated above, we find no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. The interim order, if any is hereby vacated. Petition dismissed. .;