SBCWP NO.584/2008. 1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.584/2008. Ashoka Transport Company Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of order :- 23/1/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Shri Satish Khandelwal for the petitioner. Shri K.C. Sharma Caveator-State. **** The petitioner has preferred this writ petition not only against the order dated 16/11/2007 Ann.10 but to further seek a direction that they should be permitted to park and halt their vehicles in the bus stand of RSRTC though in the relief clause relief has been claimed by stating that the said facility should be given in the bus stand maintained by the Transport Department in the State of Rajasthan. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, earlier RSRTC was permitting necessary facility of parking and halting of the private buses and for that purposes he has referred Annexures 3 to 5 and specifically Annexure-5 to show that even the RSRTC has given this facility to one Mewad Transport Company after charging necessary fee. The case therefore, made out on the ground of discrimination. Learned SBCWP NO.584/2008. 2 counsel for the petitioner further urged that even otherwise the respondents are under an obligation to provide the bus stand for the petitioner and referring to the judgment of Ishwar Singh Bagga Vs. Vs. State of Raj. : A.I.R. 1987 SC 628, it was submitted that whether it is a private or government undertaking operators, they stand at par hence, in that view of the matter, the RSRTC is under an obligation to allow parking or halting of the private buses in their bus stand. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked as to whether the bus stand maintained by the RSRTC belongs to them or the others, learned counsel submitted that those lands are acquired by the State Government and was given to the RSRTC. It was then stated that bus stand is property of RSRTC and is maintained by them. In view of above, it becomes clear that the property belongs to the RSRTC is now asked for utilization by the petitioner also. The submission as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was otherwise dealt with in Annexure- 10, after considering the judgment of Ishwar SBCWP NO.584/2008. 3 Singh Bagga (supra) and authority came to the conclusion that the bus stand in question is a property of RSRTC itself and, therefore, no permission can be granted by the Government for parking and halting of the buses in the said property. It is to be clarified that merely for the reason that the government undertaking or private operators are at par cannot mean that even if property belongs to private operator, government undertaking may be allowed to enter in and same way if the property belongs to the government undertaking, a private operator may be allowed to enter in without their permission. In view of above, no case is made out to show that petitioner is having any right for the relief claimed herein. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that in a reported judgment of Municipal Council Bhopal Vs. Sindhi Sahiti Multipurpose Transport Co-op. Society Ltd. and anr. : A.I.R. 1973 SC 2420, the Supreme Court held that even if Municipality has declared the place of bus stand, the bus operators cannot yet to be compelled to operate its buses by using the said bus stand. The case herein is other way SBCWP NO.584/2008. 4 and, therefore, the judgment referred to above is of no assistance in the present matter being set of facts herein are totally different. In the order dated Annexure-10, it was also came that RSRTC is not permitting parking and halting of Bus of private operator and Annexure-2 to Annexure-5 were issued at the time when RSRTC had not issued necessary order. In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Hence, same is dismissed in limine. (M.N. BHANDARI), J. anil