A writ petition challenging the closure of a newly opened bus stand. The court found the temporary suspension was due to NHAI road works and no first-hand information was available on their progress, thus refusing to interfere.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.09.2014
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
W.P.No.25773 of 2013
J.Venkatesh Kumar ...Petitioner
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to utilize the new additional bus stand situate along the ChennaiBangalore Highways, Vaniyambadi forthwith and further direct the 3rd respondent to ply all buses as per time schedule.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Vijayan, S.C. Assisted by Mr.Sajeevkumar and Mrs.Bhavani Subbarayan for M/s.Royan Law Associates
For Respondents : Mr.S.T.S.Moorthy, Govt. Pleader
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The location of a bus stand seems to have generated multifarious petitions before this Court and proceedings have even been taken upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court – a completely executive function. This issue emanates from 2003 onwards as to whether the bus stand should be re-located at the present site or not. The stand of the respondents ultimately was that the bus stand would be located at the present site and the bus stand was also opened on 15.10.2012. We may also note that there were some counter petitions also, which were dismissed. The contempt petitions filed were also closed. Now, a fresh petition has been filed by the present petitioner stating that after initially opening the bus stand, it has again been closed.
2.The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents throws some light on why the bus stand itself has generated so much of litigations. It is the stand of the respondents that the land value in and around the bus stand premises has immensely increased and in that behalf, the respondents impute some motive with the petitioner of having a Power of Attorney over the land area to the extent of 1 acre 36 cents. The petitioner however states that this Power of Attorney was cancelled the next day itself. The land area near the bus stand apparently has been converted into house sites and thus, what is imputed is that it is the escalation price of land which has “escalated” into multifarious litigations for this bus stand.
3.In so far as the status of the bus stand is concerned, the affidavit affirmed on 01.10.2013 goes on to state that National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) is carrying on work of six-laning of NH 46, for which the existing service road has to be widened. The work was expected to be completed by December, 2013 and thus, temporary restriction has been placed by the NHAI. It is also stated that NHAI has assured the respondents that once the six-laning work is complete, the request of municipality to give an opening in the highway to access the bus stand directly in front of the bus stand would be considered. Not only that, the municipality is alleged to be suffering revenue losses, as the shops in the structure of bus stand has remained unutilised and this revenue can be generated only
if access is provided to the bus stand. It has been averred in para 17 that only after the completion of NHAI project work, the vehicles can enter the bus stand.
4.Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the work of NHAI is over and he had even obtained information under the Right to Information Act in that behalf. The fact, however, remains that NHAI was never impleaded as a party in the present proceedings even after the counter affidavit was filed. Thus, we have no first hand information about the work being done by NHAI nor is the RTI information placed on record as on date.
5.On an analysis of the averments made in the counteraffidavit, there can be little doubt that the respondents cannot be faulted, as they have categorically stated that the temporary suspension of the use of bus stand is a consequence of NHAI carrying on the work. It is also of the view that matter of this nature being completely based on administrative opinion as to how the bus stand is to be accessed is the one between the NHAI and the respondent municipality and as per the assurance held out by the respondentmunicipality, steps would be taken to create access to the bus stand in collaboration with the NHAI. In view of this categorical stand, no directions are called from us.
6.The writ petition, thus, stands disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
Asst. Registrar (CS-III)
//True Copy//
Sub Asst. Registrar.
sra
To
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should issue a direction to utilitize the new bus stand and direct plying of buses.
Whether the suspension of bus stand usage due to NHAI road work warrants a writ of mandamus.
J. Venkatesh Kumar
The State of Tamilnadu
Commissioner for Municipal Administration
Regional Transport Officer
Collector, Vellore District
Vaniyambadi Municipal Council
Sanjay Kishan Kaul
M. Sathyanayanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
