CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.11566 OF 1992 --------------- BUXAR ZILA BUS OWNERS ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, SRI BAL KRISHNA JHA SON OF LATE RAM CHANDRA JHA, RESIDENT OF GOLA BAZAR, BUXAR, P.S. AND DISTRICT- BUXAR……………………………….. PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. DEPUTY COLLECTOR CUM SPECIAL OFFICER, MUNICIPALITY, BUXAR. 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,BUXAR.............RESPONDENTS WITH CWJC No.12935 oF 1992 1 BUS PARICHALAK SANGH,SAHARSA THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT BADRI NATH JHA SON OF LATE SURYA NARAYAN JHA, RESIDENT OF COLLEGE GATE, SAHARSA, P.O. + P.S. SAHARSA ,DISTT. SAHARSA 2. RADHA PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE RAJENDRA SINGH, RE SIDENT OF KAYASTHA TOLA, SAHARSA, P.O.+ P.S. SAHARSA, DISTRICT- SAHARSA 3. SHIV KUMAR AGRAWAL, SON OF LATE LAKHI PRASAD AGRAWAL, RESIDENT OF PURAB BAZAR, BUS STAND, SAHARSA, P.O.+ P.S. + DISTRICT- SAHARSA. 4. DARSHAN SINGH SON OF KARNAIL SINGH, RESIDENT OF PURAB BAZAR, SAHARSA, P.O.+ P.S. + DISTT.. SAHARSA ………… PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, VISHWERAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD,PATNA. 2. STATE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, BIHAR, VISHWESERAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. KOSHI REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, SAHARSA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, KOSHI REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, SAHARSA. 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE- SAHARSA 5. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE--- MADHEPURA. 6. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE- SUPAUL 7. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT BOARD, MADHEPURA CUM DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER,MADHEPURA 8. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT BOARD CUM DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, SUPAUL 9. CHAIRMAN, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, BIRPUR, DISTRICT- SUPAUL 10. SAHARSA MUNICIPALITY, THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MUNICIPALITY- SAHARSA 11. MURARI PRASAD YADAV S/O NOT KNOWN, CONTRACTOR BUS 2 PARAB, SAHARSA 12. PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O NOT KNOWN, LESSEE, MADHEPURA DISTRICT BOARD BUS PARAV, MADHEPURA 13. UPENDRA PRASAD YADAV, CONTRACTOR, BUS PARAW, TRIVENIGANJ, SON OF BALDEO YADAV, RESIDENT OF DAPARKHA, TRIVENIGANJ, DISTRICT- SUPAUL. 14. KAMESHWAR PD. YADAV, S/O NOT KNOWN,CONTRACTOR BUS PARAW, BIRPUR, DISTRICT- SUPAUL 15. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, N.E. RLY,SAMASTIPUR, P.S. AND DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR…………………… RESPONDENTS WITH CWJC No.9038 oF 1997 1. SUDHANSHU SHEKHAR SINGH , SON OF LATE RAMESH PRASAD SINGH, MISSION COMPOUND, SAHARSA, DISTRICT- SAHARSA 2. MANTRESHWAR MISHRA, SON OF SHRI RAJENDRA MISHRA, COLLEGE GATE, SAHARSA,DISTT. SAHARSA.. APPELLANTS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER KOSHI DIVISION, SAHARSA,DIST.SAHARSA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-SAHARSA,DISTT. SAHARSA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHEPURA,DIST. MADHEPURA 5. THE SAHARSA MUNICIPALITY THROUGH ITS SPECIAL OFFICER, P.S. AND DISTRICT- SAHARSA 6. THE ZILA PARISHAD, MADHEPURA THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, P.S. AND DISTRICT- MADHEPURA 7. THE BIRPUR NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE THROUGH THE SPECIAL OFFICER, BIRPUR NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE BIRPUR, DISTRICT- SUPAUL 8. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 9. THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, URBAN DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA… RESPONDENTS. -------- For The Petitioner : None FOR The Respondent : Mr. Anil Kr. Jha,GA2 ( CWJC 11566/92) For The Petitioner : None For The Respondents : None ( CWJC 12935/92) For The Petitioner :None For The Respondent Municipality , Mr. Anil Kr. Mukund ( CWJC No.9038/1997) 2 19-2-2010 Nobody appears for the petitioners in these three 3 writ petitions which have been made analogous for the purpose of hearing. In the first writ petition Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, G.A.2 appears for the State and in the 3rd. writ petition Mr. Anil Kumar Mukund appears for the concerned Municipality. They represent some of the respondents only. The issue raised in these writ petitions relates to charging of fees at places demarcated as parking places for Buses and other commercial vehicles. Petitioners were aggrieved by levy of fees for maintenance of the parking places. In particular a grievance was raised that the fees were not prescribed by any lawful authority and appeared to be arbitrary. On behalf of respondents it has been submitted that these matters now no longer survive because the parking places fixed by the authorities have changed from time to time but so far as levy of fees is concerned, the provisions of section 117 of the Motors Vehicle Act and Rule 191 of the Motor Vehicle Rules govern the field and the authority competent to prescribe the fees is Regional Transport Authority under the provisions of the aforesaid Rule. Since the grievance of the petitioners can be 4 considered by the concerned authority in the light of statutory provisions in the Act and the Rules noticed above, in our view, there is nothing of any significance to be decided in these writ petitions. However, there appears some substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the respondent that the matters appear to have become infructuous. However, since nobody appears on behalf of the petitioners, these writ petitions are dismissed as not pressed. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J) Birendra Prasad Verma,J) Naresh