The power to designate a bus stand and levy fees vests with the Regional Transport Authority and not the District Magistrate.

1. Multiplicity of legislation tends to create jurisdictional penumbra where one is not quite clear whether it is open to him to take an action or whether that particular action lawfully belongs to some other authority. In that circumstance an act done with perfect good intent and in larger public interest may yet fall down on grounds of being unauthorised by law. This is what appears to have happened in this case.

2. Having regard to the rapid development of Rajgir as a place of historic, religious and tourist attraction the district administration constructed there a bus stand at an expense of Rs. 27 lakhs. The District Magistrate, Nalanda then issued an order under his memo No. 586, dated 16-9-1998 directing that vehicles carrying passengers or tourists must stop at the designated bus stand and no where else. It was also directed that the vehicles would pay fees at rates prescribed in that order. This order is sought to be challenged by the petitioner who is a passenger bus operator and held a State carriage permit for the route Gaya to Biharshariff via Wazirganj, Hisua, Rajgir for making two trips daily. At the time of the filing of the writ petition on 15-12-1998 the permit was valid upto 8-1-1999.

3. From a perusal of the impugned order it appears that the order is in two parts; in the first part the District Magistrate designated a piece of land, describing it in detail by giving plot Nos., khata Nos. and its boundaries on the four sides as the bus stand for Rajgir where alone all the vehicles carrying passengers and tourists must stop. For the purpose of designating the bus stand the District Magistrate invoked the provisions as contained in S. 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 187 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1992 . In the second part of the order the District Magistrate prescribed fees, at different rates, realisable from the different kinds of vehicle. For levying fees he purported to exercise the powers under Rule 191(2)(i) of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules.

4. Mr. Bibhuti Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda was inoperative, unenforceable and non est in the eyes of law for the simple reason that the District Magistrate did not have the legal authority to designate a bus stand for vehicles coming from outside Rajgir and to levy fees on such vehicles. Mr. Pandey submitted that under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules the power to designate a bus stand and levy fees on the vehicles lay with Regional Transport Authority.

5. Mr. Alamdar Hussain, learned SC VI appearing for the respondents first resisted the challenge to the order passed by the District Magistrate on the grounds of locus standi. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner permit would have lapsed on 8-1-1999 and after that date he ceased to have any interest in the matter and, therefore, he cannot be allowed to assail the order setting up a bus stand at Rajgir and levying fees on vehicles coming there. In support of his submission learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Kalyan Singh V/s. State of U.P., AIR 1962 SC 1183.

6. It is indeed true that at the time of filing of the writ petition the validity of the petitioner permit was up to 8-1-1999 but it is equally true that having a valid permit the petitioner had a vested right for its renewal. Unfortunately, none of the counsel are in a position to clearly state whether or not the permit of the petitioner was renewed after 8-1-1999 and whether or not it was subsisting when this case was taken up for hearing. I am, however, not inclined to reject this case simply on the ground of locus and in my view the decision relied upon by Mr. Hussain has no application to the facts of this case. In the case of Kalyan Singh (AIR 1962 SC 1183, pursuant to the nationalisation of the route the permit issued in favour of the appell