R.S.Garg, J.

1. The petitioner is the resident of Fatehpur filed this writ petition challenging the correctness, validity and propriety of Annexure 1, a short term notice so issued by District Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Gaya. According to the petitioner in Annexure 1 Zila Parishad wanted to settle Fatehpur Bus Stand for 2001-2002 but before settlement they did not obtain any permission or sanction/direction from concerned Regional Transport Authority in accordance with Rule 191 of Motor Vehicle Rules. The petitioner also says that the action of the authority is illegal and cannot be allowed to stand. The State Government in its counter has come out with a separate case that Regional Transport Authority has not passed any order under Rule 191. The respondent-Zila Parishad in their counter-affidavit submitted that the petitioner has no locus. The petitioner in fact, has personal grievance against Zila Parishad relating to some other contract matter and as the Zila Parishad is the owner of the property the right vests in the Zila Parishad. The Zila Parishad is entitled to station a particular place as Bus Stand.

2. Referring to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 191 it is contended that the District Magistrate or Regional Transport Authority or the State Government can direct the owner (Zila Parishad) to provide certain facilities and amenities but beyond that R.T.A. or the State has no authority. It is also contended that the period for which tender/auction notice was issued has since come to an end and for the said period bus stand could not be auctioned, the petition has become infructuous and must be dismissed accordingly.

3. Earned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition is not with mala fide intention. The petitioner has raised legal issue and Zila Parishad in absence of the order of Regional Transport Authority concerned, cannot settle the bus stand nor can settle the right in favour of any body. He further submitted that the petition would not become infructuous because the respondent-authority, after dismissal of the petition as infructuous, may again issue another notice and invite tender for the same.

4. Learned Counsel for the State, however, submitted that the Governments stand is clear and positive and according to them no order has been passed by the concerned Regional Transport Authority.

5. Rule 191 relates to parking places and halting stations. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 191. clearly provides that in consultation with local authorities having jurisdiction in the area concerned or the authority/officer, who is competent to give consent may by notification in the official Gazette or by the erection of traffic signs which are permitted for the purpose, in consultation with the local authorities having jurisdiction in the area concerned District Magistrate by notification in the official Gazette or by the erection of traffic signs foe the purpose under Sub-sec. (1) of sec. 116, or both, in respect of picking up or setting down of Passengers or both, by public serving vehicle or by any specified class of public service vehicle:

(i) conditionally or unconditionally prohibit the use of any specified place or of any place of a specified class, or

(ii) require that within the limits of any municipal corporation, municipality, notified area or cantonment, or within such other limits as specified in the notification, certain, specified stands or halting places only shall be used.

6. From perusal of Clauses (2) of Rule 191 it would be clear that a particular place is to be specified as a halting place or bus stand. In the present matter, undisputedly, before issuance of Annexure 1 no order in favour of Zila Parishad was passed by the concerned Regional Transport Authority. The submission of earned Counsel for the respondent-Zila Parishad, that they being the owner and as they were using the place for long many years as bus stand they are entitled to auction their right, cannot b