JUDGMENT
M. Ramachandran, J.
1. The Vazhoor Grama Panchayat (1st respondent herein) by Ext. P2 resolution unanimously had decided certain arrangements in the matter of stopping place of stage carriages and parking of vehicles, including light motor vehicles. Altogether there were nine such decisions which are proposed to be implemented forthwith. It is indicated that persons including the first petitioner had been invited for discussion in the matter and Ext. R1(a), made available by the Panchayat, indicated that the representatives from the General Public and Organizations, like Department Society, Merchants Association, Citizen Forum, Autorikshaw Union (CITU), Representatives of INTUC, BJP, CPI, CPM, Kerala Congress (J), Kerala Congress (M), Autoriksha Union (BMS), Poura Samithi etc. had participated.
2. After about a month it appears that the petitioners had made an objection in the matter on 26.03.2003 by Ext. P4 and thereafter filed this Original Petition on 7.4.2003. In view of the interim orders passed by this Court, the implementation of the decision has been stayed.
3. The Panchayat had filed a counter affidavit and a petition for vacating the order of stay (I.A.No. 1077 of 2003). When the CMPs were listed for hearing, the parties were agreed that the Original Petition could be disposed of.
4. The legal contention urged by the petitioners is on the basis of two provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, namely Rule 206 and Rule 344. Sri. A. Inees, appearing for the petitioners, also highlighted his contentions on the basis of Section 227 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.
5. Sri. Mathew John, appearing for the first respondent – Panchayat, submitted that the Original Petition was an after thought, the petitioner having agreed to the proposals which were in public interest and as understood for the benefit of the residents of the Panchayat. The submission was that the Panchayat became conscious about the proximity of bus stop for in coming and out going buses and as a measure to avoid heavy rush the position of the bus stop had been proposed to be shifted by about fifty meters. Though Ext. P2 is challenged as such, the petitioners had confined their arguments in respect of item No. 1, which directed that buses travelling west to east are to stop on the left-hand side of K.K. Road from Malikapady onwards for permitting passengers to alight and get in.
6. Thus, in effect the change of place of a bus stop is the bone of contention. In general, the attempt was to establish that in the matter of shifting of a bus stop, the Panchayat had no jurisdiction at all and it was mandatory that consultation with the Regional Transport Authority was essential. Prescribing stops, halting places, fair stages etc., were the exclusive domain of the Regional Transport Authority concerned.
7. The learned counsel first took me to Section 227 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The provisions extracted herein below:
“227. Public landing places and cart-stands etc. – Subject to such rules as may be prescribed, the Village Panchayat may-
(a) provide public landing places, halting places and cart stands (including stands for animals and vehicles of any description) and levy fees for their use; and
(b) where any such place or stand has been provided, prohibit the use for the same purpose by any person, within such distance, thereof, any public place or the side of any public road as the Panchayat may, subject to the control of the Regional Transport Authority, specify :
Provided that the previous sanction of the Regional Transport Authority shall be obtained before any stand or halting place for motor vehicles is opened”.
As could be seen from the above said provision, it concerns about the public landing places, halting places and cart-stands. This may not apply to the facts of this case, as a change in the existing bus stop does not come in any of the matters notified in the said section.
8. Therefore, we may take notice of the second contention on the basis of Rules 206 and 344 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. Sri. Inees referred to a judgment of this Court in O.P. No. 15299/2001, reported in 2001 (2) KLT SN 85 (Case No. 107 – Abdurahiman v. Vengara Grama Panchayat). I had occasion to consider the matter, where a stand/halting place for the motor vehicles was opened by the Panchayat. The argument of the petitioners there was that, the mandatory consultation with the Regional Transport Authority had not been made and consequently the steps taken were illegal. On a reading of Rule 344, it is clear that the Regional Transport Authority was vested with the jurisdiction in such matters. The rule is as following (relevant portions alone).
“344. Bus stand and parking places :- (1) Authority to determine location of- 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-
(a) bus stands, where from stage carriages start or terminate service; and
(b) parking places wherein motor vehicles in general or of specified description may stand either indefinitely or for a specified period of time”.
Thus the prerogative is vested with the Regional Transport Authority in matters of prescribing bus stands and parking places. However, since the petitioners had confined his arguments in respect of a bus stop relating to stage carriages alone, I do not think that the validity of the prescriptions vis-a-vis in relation to vehicles of other descriptions referred to in Ext. P1 need be looked into or examined. The resolution does not unsettle parking places of stage carriages at all though Rule 344 indicates that the duty of the Regional Transport Authority is mandatory in nature, as held in the decision.
9. In fact, what has relevance if at all is Rule 206. But, while looking at Rule 206, it does not appear to cast a mandatory requirement. The Regional Transport Authority, under the Rules may, if no stopping place has been fixed for stage carriages in accordance with the provisions of any statute, fix such places for such carriages after consultation with such other authority as.it may deem desirable. Thus, this is only on invitation alone. It can be on a request made by the Panchayat, but this does, not take away the right of the Panchayat to prescribe that in the matter of bus stops it has a say and even without consultation with the Regional Transport Authority. This is possible to be interpreted so for the reason that being a local authority a Panchayat will be conscious about the requirements and needs of the citizens there and as has been done in the present case on a general consultation it would be possible for them to prescribe restrictions or changes in public interest. As a matter of fact, the Regional Transport Authority may not usually be equipped to decide about a change in the location of the bus stop in a rural area. Therefore, I do not think that the Panchayat has erred in prescribing that in the matter of buses coming from the eastern side, they have to alight and load passengers from a newly notified point.
10. In the aforesaid view, I do not find that interference is called for. The Original Petition will stand dismissed. The interim orders are vacated.
