1. Although petitioners in both the aforesaid cases are different but these cases have been heard together and are being decided by this common order as the subject matter of both the writ petitions, parties to the dispute as well as the reliefs claimed therein are the same.

2. Both the aforesaid writ petitions have been filed challenging common order dated 20.4.2010 by which the Chairman of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal for the sake of brevity) dismissed Transport Revision No. 1 of 2010 and Transport Revision No. 2 of 2010 filed by the petitioners of both the writ petitions and also challenging order dated 19.12.2009 by which the Chairman, North Bihar Regional Transport Authority, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as the Authority for the sake of brevity) settled the Mahua Bus Stand in favour of private respondent no. 12 Dayanand Singh, who is common in both the writ cases and for other ancillary reliefs.

3. These cases have chequered history and from the imbroglio of its omnium gatherum certain facts evolve that Mahua is a sub-divisional town situated in the district of Vaishali and from Mahua Chowk several roads branch out to Muzaffarpur, to Darbhanga, to Samastipur and to Hajipur and thus it has assumed enormous importance of magnitudenal dimensions for vehicular traffic specially for the northern part of this State. In the said circumstances, a bus stand of suitable area situated in the vicinity of Mahua Chowk was required.

4. Previously a bus stand was being operated by one Sheo Kumar Singh on the land offered by him but subsequently North Bihar Regional Transport Authority, Muzaffarpur allowed operation of bus stand on the land offered by one Manoj Kumar. After some time there was a bitter fight between Smt. Urmila Devi who was the owner and lessor of the said land and Manoj Kumar who was the lessee and the licensee of the bus stand. There was another fight between erstwhile licensee Sheo Kumar Singh and the then licensee Manoj Kumar who filed Transport Revision No. 37 of 2006 and Transport Revision No. 39 of 2006 respectively before the Transport Appellate Tribunal, which vide order dated 16.3.2006 set aside the decision of the authority and remanded the matter to it for fresh decisions. This order was affirmed by the High Court vide its order dated 8.7.2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6744 of 2007 and C.W.J.C. No. 6666 of 2007 filed by Sheo Kumar Singh and Manoj Kumar and also by a Division Bench of this court in L.P.A. No. 662 of 2008 and L.P.A. No. 664 of 2008 filed by the objectors which were similarly disposed of.

5. However, on remand the abovementioned revision cases revived and the Appellate Tribunal considered the matter in detail and vide order dated 11.9.2006 rejected both of the aforesaid claims of Sheo Kumar Singh and Manoj Kumar and observed that bus stand must be operated on another land for which fresh proposal should be called for from the District Magistrate, Vaishali. Thus the claims of Sheo Kumar Singh and Manoj Kumar stood concluded and closed.

6. In view of the directions of the Appellate Tribunal given in its order dated 11.9.2006 fresh proposals were invited by the authorities, in response to which 12 applications were received including the applications of Binod Ram (petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 9076 of 2010), Bipin Kumar (petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 10798 of 2010) and Dayanand Singh (respondent no. 12 in both the cases) which were all sent by the District Magistrate, Vaishali to the Sub-Divisional Officer and Circle Officer, Mahua for local inspection whereafter both the said authorities submitted their joint report dated 29.12.2006 in which the land offered by Bipin Kumar was found more suitable for the operation of Muhua Bus Stand.

7. Against the said report, some applicants including Binod Ram and Dayanand Singh raised objections upon which the District Magistrate, Vaishali constituted a Committee, headed by Additional.