W.P. Nos.2109, 2110, 2205, 2301,2380 and 2382 of 2024 andW.M.P.Nos.2258 to 2061, 2393, 2396,2491, 2492, 2582, 2584 to 2588 of 2024 R.N.MANJULA,J.The petitioners in W.P.Nos.2109, 2110, 2205, 2380 and 2382 are owners of omnibus operators and they are contract carriage operators. The petitioner in W.P.No.2301 of 2024 is the All Omnibus operators Association.

W.P. Nos.2109, 2110, 2205, 2301,
2380 and 2382 of 2024 and
W.M.P.Nos.2258 to 2061, 2393, 2396,
2491, 2492, 2582, 2584 to 2588 of 2024 R.N.MANJULA,J.
The petitioners in W.P.Nos.2109, 2110, 2205, 2380 and 2382 are owners of omnibus operators and they are contract carriage operators. The petitioner in W.P.No.2301 of 2024 is the All Omnibus operators Association.

2. These Writ petitions have been filed challenging the proceedings of the Transport Commissioner, Chepauk issued to restrict the plying of the south bound and north bound buses of the State of Tamil Nadu till Kilambakkam Bus Stand and Koyambedu bus stand respectively vide his Proceedings No.43915/A1/2023, dated 22.01.2024, consequent to the inauguration and dedication of the Kilambakkam Centenary Bus Terminal
   (hereinafter referred as KCBT) to public.
3. Heard Mr.Vijaynarayan, learned Senior counsel for the petitionersin W.P.Nos.2109 and 2110 of 2024, Mr.M.Palani, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.2205 of 2024, Mrs.Radhagopalan, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.2380 and 2382 of 2024 and Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondents.
4. Mr.Vijaynarayan, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners in
   W.P.Nos.2109 and 2110 of 2024 submitted that when Chennai Mofussil Bus Terminus (CMBT) was shifted to Koyambedu, similar such orders directing all the contract carriages, (hereinafter referred as omnibuses) to start only from the CMBT and they shall not enter into the city of Madras. The said orders consequent to the shifting to Koyambedu Bus Stand was inconvenient to tourist parties and the travelling public. When the same was challenged through a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.41607 of 2002 and batch before this court, the Division Bench had passed an order dated 30.12.2003 by allowing the Writ Petitions and quashed the orders of the Transport Commissioner and the Commissioner of Police. Subsequently, the contract carriage operators continued to enter into the city of Madras.
5. It is further submitted that similar such situation has now arisen in view of the present impugned order which has been passed after the Kilambakkam Bus Terminus was inaugurated. Kilambakkam Bus Terminus is about 35 km away from the city and the South bound buses operated by State Transport Corporation and State Express Transport Corporation including the omni buses have been ordered to be operated from Kilambakkam Centenary Bus Terminal. The order has come into force from 24.01.2024.
6. It is further submitted that new KCBT bus stand is not convenient for any one including the passengers and the bus operators. On an average, about 800 Omni buses are leaving the city of Madras towards South parts of the State between 7 p.m to 10 p.m. The new bus stand has only 77 bus bays for Omni buses. So the rest of the buses are constrained to wait on the GST road and further there is no proper ticket booking facility also.
7. It is the common submission of all the learned counsels for the petitioners that the KCBT has commenced to function unmindful of the public inconvenience, as it did not have connectivity to the city of Chennai and there are some other features like disabled friendly infrastructure are also absent. And also that the respondents cannot prevent the Omni buses which has either National or State Permit from entering into the city.
8. When the Koyambedu Bus Terminal was started, the public was not conversant to its use and found it inconvenient. Slowly all the amenities are put in place and the connectivity to the City Centre has also been resolved. In the absence of any local public commutation to reach the City from Kilambakkam, without any doubt public will suffer inconveniences, besides spending lot of money to engage autos and taxis and this will go counter-productive.
9. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that by being sensitive of the public convenience, the Government has allowed hundreds of MTC buses ply from Kilambakkam to City and they help the passengers to reach and go from and out of Kilambakam to all parts of City and the charges for the ticket also at a very reasonable cost between Rs.17/- to Rs.35/-.
10. Attention was invited to the presence of various facilities like exclusive parking area for parking Omni buses, (both active and idle), line of shops like eateries, Aavin Milk booth, Food Courts, Toilets, private space for Lactating mothers, Medical Emergency Centres, Police Station, drinking water facilities, Auto stand, taxi stand, parking area for other cars, buggies for senior citizens and disabled persons, Escalator facilities etc., at the KCBT. The aerial view photo of the KCBT was produced to show the magnificent manner in which KCBT project is designed and implemented.
11. It is true that the other facilities as mentioned above are also present. The people’s mobility inside the bus stand has also been shown through the photographs submitted by the learned Advocate General. No doubt the project is an exhaustive and an impressive one. With regard to the local commutation to and from Kilambakkam to reach out the city nearly 500 local buses are allowed to ply. It is learnt that atleast 4651 trip per day between the city and the bus stand at a frequency of 3 to 5 minutes are made to support the public.
12. Mrs.Radha Gopalan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.2380 and 2382 of 2024 submitted that a Writ Petition has already been filed before the first bench of this Court in W.P.No.29942 of 2023 to attend certain short-sightedness in the project when it was under construction and appropriate directions have been issued by the court. The learned counsel specifically pointed out that in the bus terminus, there is no provision for the differently abled persons for conveniently picking up and dropping them and there are no low floor buses available to suit their convenience.
13. Mr.M.Palani, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.2205 of 2024 submitted that after the KCBT was completed and before it was put to use, due notification has to be given under Section 245 of the Motor Vehicles Act. But, the said notification has not been given in terms of the said provision. Disallowing the State permit buses to ply anywhere inside the State and restricting them to be parked at Kilambakkam or Koyambedu, will be contrary to the very permit given to them.
14. The learned Advocate General submitted that there may be initial hiccups and they can be resolved shortly. After making all the submissions and certain suggestions, Mr.Vijaynarayan, learned Senior Counsel submitted the following proposals for the kind consideration of the
    Government in order to achieve some workable solution.
    PROPOSAL No.1:
    Most of the Omni Bus Operators who are all running travels business are having their own place (Garage) or rented place for operating, parking and maintaining of their vehicles. The Government can consider permitting/allowing those operators to operate from their own place and to reach Killambakkam bus stand for operating to southbound districts. It is important to point out that even prior to the issuance of the present impugned proceedings, when the Omni buses where being operated from Koyambedu bus stand, this facility was available.
    PROPOSAL No.2:
    Even when the Koyambedu bus stand was in existence, the Omni Bus Operators were allowed to operate and pickup and drop the passengers from their own garage or place of business.
    The government can consider the same.
    PROPOSAL No.3:
    Since, the Tamil Nadu Government had permitted the State Transport Corporation buses including SETC buses to operate from both Killambakkam bus stand and also from Madhavaram (MMBT) bus stand, the government can also consider permitting/allowing the Omni bus operators to operate from MMBT bus stand and pick up passengers in Killambakkam bus stand.
    PROPOSAL No.4:
    Since, the Government had permitted few of the Omni buses plying to Bangalore, Andhra Pradesh, etc., from Koyambedu bus stand, similarly the government can permit/allow the other south bound buses also to operate from Koyambedu bus stand and pick up passengers at Killambakkam bus stand.
15. So far as the first proposal is concerned, the learned Advocate General on instruction readily accepted. The Government is reluctant only to allow picking up and dropping the passengers from any other place in the city other than the Kilambakkam bus stand.
16. So the resultant effect of agreement to proposal number one is just to allow the contract carriages for stationing them anywhere in the city or to attend maintenance and repair. By allowing a few pick up point inside the city while the bus is going from its city garage to Kilambakkam would serve the interest of the public also. So the request can be considered by the respondent by giving a patient hearing to the representatives of bus owner associations by convening a joint meeting with the Authorities, in case there is no harm if certain pick up and drop points in the city are earmarked.
17. The Kilambakkam bus terminus is an infant born a few days ago and things can be either become conversant or get resolved only after the KCBT is allowed to function fully. Even though the local buses are plied for commutation from the terminus to city and vice-versa, there may still be difficulties in view of the design of the local buses. Since the commuters are passengers from and to Chennai from Southern Districts, they will be carrying huge luggage. Normal local buses do not have exclusive space for such luggage and hence it will not be convenient for the commuters to use

those buses effectively. This will again lead to passengers to switch over to using private Auto or Taxies by spending a lot of money and it will go counter-productive.

18. So I feel it is worthwhile for the respondents to call for a meeting for allowing the representatives of the various bus operators Association and even the representatives of public to vent out their grievances and find out ways and means to resolve them smoothly. The respondents shall immediately address the issues like absence of facilities for differently abled persons. To have local buses with luggage space can also be a priority for immediate action.
19. So far as the legal issues are concerned, those issues can be dealt later or rectified if possible.
20. The facilities present in Kilambakkam bus terminus project as shown to court are laudable and several of its features are seen be with a vision for the future. Any project when introduced will have its own starting trouble and any glitches can be resolved in due course. The parties can approach the issues with an open and positive mindset. The respondents shall invite representatives of bus owner associations or any willing public volunteers for a meeting that shall be scheduled tomorrow, hold discussions and endeavour to smoothen the transition by finding out workable
    solutions. It is needles to state that the petitioners shall also extend their best co-operation to this process.
21. Post the matter on 07.02.2024. The Respondents shall submit a status report by then.
    01.02.2024
    vum
    Note: Issue Order Copy today (01.02.2024)
    R.N.MANJULA ,J.
    vum
    W.P. Nos.2109, 2110, 2205, 2301,
    2380 and 2382 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.2258 to 2061, 2393, 2396,
    2491, 2492, 2582, 2584 to 2588 of 2024
    01.02.2024