• c3 IN ta nxr CUSS? OP KAztfi etAtA At 3JTG’l&sE )ited this the 16th day of June 1998 38Y0R5 E C1J’t aZi. J.,tIC CINhI 1 li&K1i4IAfi 4.P.Nu. 21850/97 an d..1aveen 0mm, JfoA.ostyansnqyqna ingh, tajar, ISuw C,wmr, a.U.emp]a $oad, nanipet, Hospet—583 201. •.lbtiticner (ni Jagadessh ii’3ndargi, 4vocete) and: 1. Ihe City Municipality, by its Commiaiomr, lIospet. 2. .mrcle Inspector of Police, own Police at°tion, slospet. 3. The Aegioml Zrtnsport Officer, by its ‘ecretary, :foapet. 4. floolqK°rni Stamesh, .cuncillor of City tarni— cipelity, PoUt Line, ospet. . .ttespondents (‘ni “J’.7’lgi, for -.1. on Ch,n&-snekar P. Ptil, for •.4. °ni it. 2 .gar’3 ?,G1 for .1 end a.2 1 mit petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of tie Comtitution of India pr9yi% to quash the notices .‘rmezures 13 end 1 datea 20.5.1997 and 3.6.1997 respectly end direct 1.1 to 4.3 not to restrain the petition...r from pking his buses in the open place be ]onging to the bity Ifunicipelity, a-’ a — - - —2— ‘iospet near Sr.iodi inay ka semple till alterntiw suitable prking pbce and halting station is proed for toe said perpose to toe petitioner as per law. this petition cing up for prelimin hearing in D gro p talsy, the Court m:ade the following: T he petitior is the ower of the buses. The resints of ilospet gave number of reesentations to th first respondent—Itunicipality requesting te Yunicipnlity to pvent the petitioner from parking his buses near Siddi ]inayaka lemple, Hospet, T he Mnicipiity after corEidering the said representations and in viCw of te fact that parking of the busses woild cuse inconvenience to te persons who come there to collect water from the boarewell issued a notice dated 20,5.1997 directing the petitiorer not to perk his bus*es in that area. There— also efter toe Liegional ‘ransp’ t officer/b issued a notice dated 3.6,1997 directing the petit loner not to ar his vehicles for pickingup of passengers ne9r iddi 1 inyaka ‘emple, !iospet. 2 hese notices are under ch4enge in this writ peti Lion, 2. tdmittedly, the area nearby diddi 1 inayaka Temple is not a bus stand. Further, t !ere is a borewell in that area. Too many wonen’folk used to —3— come to tht ooreweU to collect water. Ihe p rkin of ousee nrby th borewell necessarily cues inconvenience to the womefo1 dho coie k that borewell, herefore, taking into consideration all tese facts 1 tI !1uniciplity was rignt in ls3uing the notice coiling upon the petitior not to park his buses in tht area. £he £egionol transport Officer also has issued a notice to the petitiocr not pk his buses as he has not obtainirJ any permission from the municipal authorities to park his buses. ince t area iear iddi Vinsyalca Lemple is not de]2red as a ous stand the petitiomr has no legs iright to Dark is buses n ar that temple. In the absence of a such leg right the petitiorr is not entitled for any relief in this writ petition, 3. In the result, I ps tie following order: Jrit petition is rejected. T fi 3LD G/290