R. A. SHARMA, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER No. 2 is an existing operator holding stage carriage permit on Lucknow-Shahjahanpur route. Petitioner No. 1 claims to be an Union of private bus-operators, plying their buses on Lucknow-Shahjahanpur route. Both the petitioners have challenged fixation of bus-stand/parking place by Cantonment Board, Shahjahanpur and charging parking fees in excess of the rates notified by auction notice, which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.

( 2 ) AT the admission stage the Cantonment Board Shahjahanpur has filed a counter affidavit. The respondent No. 3, who is contractor of the Cantonment Board, has also been served, but has not put in any appearance before this Court. The writ petition is accordingly being disposed of in accordance with Rules of the Court.

( 3 ) HARDOI Roadways (Private) Union, petitioner No. 1, in our opinion, is not entitled to file the writ petition for and on behalf of transport operators. Right to ply stage carriage is derived by operators from permits granted to them under Motor Vehicles Act. A transport operator can challenge any action of an authority if it affects him adversely. It is not the case of the petitioners that the Union holds any stage carriage permit or that any of its rights are being infringed by the action of the respondents. It is also not the case of public interest litigation where a person or association can espouse cause of others who are incapable of espousing their own cause on account of poverty etc. The Union, as such, has no locus standi to file this writ petition and the writ petition so far as the Union, Petitioner No. 1 is concerned, is dismissed.

( 4 ) AS regards the grievance of the petitioner No. 2 is concerned, the fixation of bus-stand/parking place have been challenged on the ground that the Cantonment Board has no jurisdiction to fix a bus-stand. The case set-up by the Board in its counter-affidavit is that it has allotted some of its property for use as parking place and those who park their vehicles voluntarily on the aforesaid property, are charged fee as compensation for use of the property of the Cantonment Board and the Board does not coerce or compel the petitioners or any other vehicle owners to station their vehicles on the property of the Board. The Board has not claimed any statutory right to fix bus-stand or parking place. Its case is that if anybody uses the property of the Board he has to pay compensation in the form of fees for use of its property. In view of the stand taken by the Board in its counter-affidavit, it is not necessary for us to decide as to whether Cantonment Board has power to fix a bus-stand so as to compel the vehicle owners to station their vehicles, on the bus-stand, because even if Local Body does not have a power for fixing bus-stand it can still provide a bus-stand for anybody who likes to use it voluntarily and such person being required to make payment of fee for its use. In Bhopal Municipality v. S. S. M. T. Co-operative Society, the Supreme Court, after holding that Municipal Board has no power under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act to fix a bus stand, has laid down that even if Municipal Council has no statutory power for fixing bus stand :"there can be no objection to its providing a bus stand for anybody who choose to use it voluntarily and to such person being required to pay for such use. In that sense proposition 2 and 3 put forward by Mr. Chagla are inexceptionable. If for this permission the formality of the issue of a permit is followed and a fee is charged it cannot be said to be objectionable. In that case the charges may be such as may be agreed uponuponupon between the parties i. e. if the Municipality charges a certain rate only people who are prepared to pay at that rate would resort to that place. Nobody can be compelled to go to that place. Such a provision is permissible not under any provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act but arises