IMPORTANT POINT
Court upholds that prior approval for bus stand construction is sufficient, and no further permission is needed for its operation as per relevant laws.

JUDGMENT :

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

Petitioners have approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 decision taken by the Joint Regional Transport Officer.

2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioners are existing stage carriage operators conducting their services on the basis of permits issued by the 2^nd respondent, and they are aggrieved by the act of the authorities in insisting that all the stage carriages shall enter Pulamanthol Bus Stand. The grievance raised by the petitioners is that the bus stand is situated in 18 cents of land, and there is no separate ingress and egress provided in the bus stand. Though the same is termed as a bus stand, it is actually used as a parking place for vehicles owned by the people who are coming to the shops situated in the bus stand. Since there is no separate provision for ingress and egress, and on account of the parking of other vehicles, the stage carriages are not in a position to enter the bus stand. Further, it is submitted that due to the present arrangement made as per Ext.P4 to enter into the bus stand, they have to operate an additional 2.5 kms. Thereupon, they made representations before the authorities. As no action was taken, they approached this Court, filing WP(C) No.34100 of 2022, wherein a direction was issued to the 1^st respondent Regional Transport Authority, to pass appropriate orders thereon on the request made by the petitioners. Petitioners would submit that no action has been taken by the Regional Transport Authority, but Ext.P4 communication has been issued directing the petitioners to enter the bus stand. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit on the basis of Section 227 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act , 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1994’) that before opening public landing places, halting places, cart stands, previous sanction from the Regional Transport Authority is to be obtained. It is further contended that Rule 344 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules , 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 1989’) mandates that the Regional Transport Authority shall in consultation with the concerned authorities of any Corporation, Municipality or Panchayat, the Executive Engineer and the Superintendent of Police of the District, determine the location of bus stands, where from stage carriages start or terminate service. Petitioners would submit that the opening of the bus stand is in clear violation of the above-quoted provisions.

4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 7 and 8, wherein it is stated that the company of which the 7th respondent is the Managing Director, is in ownership of 1 acre and 61.5 cents of land in R.S. No.34/7 of Pulamanthole Village. The 5^th respondent Panchayat, invited tenders for the construction of a bus stand complex on BOT basis, and the company offered to construct a bus stand complex in 52 cents of land out of 1 acre 61.5 cents of land. The 1st respondent Regional Transport Authority, vide Ext R7(e) decision dated 14.10.2003 considered the resolution of the 5th respondent Panchayat for construction of the bus stand cum shopping complex and granted permission after obtaining Ext.R7(c) no objection from the Public Works Department and Ext.R7(d) no objection certificate from the District Police. Thereafter, the 5th respondent Panchayat as per Resolution Nos.1, 2(10) dated 28.02.2004, resolved to grant permission to the Company to construct the bus stand complex. As per the said resolution, the Company shall construct comfort station, police aid post, cloak room, waiting room and a bus stand with concrete/tar runway at its expense. Pursuant to the same, th