ORDER.- These two writ petitions can be conveniently taken together. W.P. No. 1350 of 1976: The petitioner was vending mutton in a small shop put up by him in a public place belonging to the first respondent and he was doing so for the past five years. For this vending of mutton, he had taken out a licence. Originally the licence fee was Rs. 18.75 which was increased to Rs. 32 and his licence came to an end by 31st March, 1976. The petitioner’s shop is situate in Rangasamudram Rajaveethi No.2. Hitherto, the slaughtering of sheep took place in the petitioner’s shop since there was no separate slaughterhouse provided for by the first respondent. By its proceedings dated 9th March, 1976 the first respondent Panchayat purported to fix 5 places for the sale of mutton and one place for establishing a slaughter-horse. One of the places notified was Rangasamudram Rajaveethi No. 2. The notice said the right to put up a mutton stall would belet out in public auction to be held on 24th March, 1976, and a deposit of Rs. 100 was required to be made for bidding at the auction. The auction took place on 24th March, 1976, wherein the second respondent was declared as the successful bidder. The petitioner, however did not participate in the auction. It is under these circumstances, this writ petition has come to be filed to declare the auction of the right to establish the mutton stall as per notice, dated 9th March, 1976 and the auction held on 24th March, 1976 as illegal on the following grounds: 2. Section 103 of the Panchayat Act hereinafter referred to as the Act,does not enable the Panchayat to levy a fee. Even if it enables so, it must have some relation to the services rendered. It is only under section 99 of the Act, a levy of fee is enabled to the Panchayat. But even that cannot be used for letting out the shop in public auction since the wording is “not exceeding the maximum rates, if any, prescribed.” 3. In the counter-affidavit of the first respondent it is stated that after the upgrading of this panchayat in the year 1968-69 licence had been issued by the first respondent as per the rules for vending mutton. In the counter-affidavit of the first respondent it is stated that after the upgrading of this panchayat in the year 1968-69 licence had been issued by the first respondent as per the rules for vending mutton. In the interest of the public health,by its resolution dated 13th August, 1975, the Panchayat resolved to regulate this slaughtering, after the sheep are subjected to medical checkup, since it was not done previously. Under section 108 of the Act certain bye-laws were framed. To this objections were invited. Since no objections were put forward, the same was approved by the Inspector on 27th February, 1976 and they were gazetted in the District Gazette. It is under these bye-laws, five places were fixed to be leased out in public auction,wherein the successful bidders after obtaining valid licence can put up mutton stalls and also one slaughtering house, which is put up by the hrst respondent at a cost of Rs. 9,000.. According to bye-law No. 6, the right to carry on the business in the[five places will be leased out by public auction every year. 4. The petitioner, though he was aware of the auction for reasons best known did not participate in the same. On the other hand, he filed O.S. No. 86 of 1976 praying for a permanent injunction, but that was not granted. The Panchayat is empowered to lease out the immovable property belonging to it, as well as road sides and road margins. Having regard to sections 108 and 109 of the Act, in order to regulate the sale of the mutton and also the slaughtering, by virtue of the powers under section 108 the above said bye-laws are framed enabling the Panchayat to lease out places earmarked for the business of vending mutton in public auction. Therefore, there are no merits in this writ petition and the same is to be dismissed. W.P. No. 1475 of 1976.- 5. The facts in this case are identical as in the other case, excepting that the petitioner is carrying on business of mutton vending in Simmayyan Pudur Perumapallam, Ariyampalayam Village. The counter-affidavit is also on the same lines. 6. Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, reiterating the stand taken in the affidavit, urges the following grounds for my consideration. 7. The counter-affidavit is also on the same lines. 6. Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, reiterating the stand taken in the affidavit, urges the following grounds for my consideration. 7. Section 108 of the Act, corresponding to section 270 of the District Municipalities Act does not enable the levy of fees, since it is only to regulate the sale by licence. It has been so held in Commissioner, Municipal Council v. Basu Venkateswara Rao1 and Palaniandi Chettiar v. Tiruchirapalli Municipality, by its Commissioner2. The regulation as contemplated under the said section can only be by issue of licence, but not by levy of tax. Even section 99 will be of no assistance to the Panchayat to hold the auction. 8. The further submission of the learned counsel is that the road is public property and it is open to the petitioner to use the road for any lawful purpose. Mutton vending cannot be said to be an unlawful purpose, and the petitioner by the proposed auction is being deprived of his lawful activity. From that point of view also it must be held to be bad. 9. Mr.S. Sethuratnam, learned counsel appearing for the panchayat submits in W.P. No. 1350 of 1976 that the petitioner will have no locus standi to maintain this petition, since he did not participate in the auction, nor again did he apply for renewal of licence. Likewise the petitioner in W.P. No. 1475 of 1976 will have also no locus standi since his place of business is not Rangasamudram Rajaveethi No. 2, but only Simmayyan Pudur Perumapallam, Ariyampalayam Village. 10. On merits, he submits, what the Panchayat does under the impugned auction is only to lease out the land earmarked for the sale of mutton. Still, the requirement to take out a licence is not dispensed with. Under section 86 of the Act, all porambokes and road sides and road margins vest with the panchayat. Therefore, where the property in question being a panchayat poramboke has got to vest in the panchayat, it can regular its use in any manner as it likes. As per notification issued in G.O. No. 2655, dated 27th December, 1972, as amended in G.O. Ms. Therefore, where the property in question being a panchayat poramboke has got to vest in the panchayat, it can regular its use in any manner as it likes. As per notification issued in G.O. No. 2655, dated 27th December, 1972, as amended in G.O. Ms. No. 474, dated 19th March, 1975, the panchayat is enabled to lease the properties belonging to it by public auction and it has to be done under the rule only in public auction. 11. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is incorrect to contend that the petitioners are not aggrieved. No doubt, the petitioner in W.P. No. 1475 of 1976 may not be interested with reference to the shop in Rangasamudram Rajaveethi No. 2. But, both these petitioners are ratepayers and therefore the writ petitions are maintainable. Public place is one impressed with public right and the right of access to that public place cannot be prevented. The learned counsel also drew my attention to the definition of public place as held in a few of the English decisions. As rightly contended by Mr. S. Sethuratnam, the learned counsel for the Respondent (Panchayat) it is not open to the petitioners to maintain the writ petitions. It is fairly conceded by Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner in W.P. No. 1475 of 1976 has no interest with reference to the auctioning of the place in Rangasamudram Rajaveethi No. 2, since he is admittedly carrying on business in Simmayyan Pudur Perumpallam, Ariyampalayam Village. As regards the writ petitioner in W.P.No. 1350 of 1976, he did not participate in the auction and his licence got expired by 31st March, 1976 and therefore he is not any longer interested. However, this objection is sought to be got over by stating that the petitioner’s rights as taxpayers are not taken away and therefore they could question the auction of the Panchayat. I am unable to agree. The petitioners’ right as taxpayers would arise only where by the auction of the panchayat a loss may result to the exchequer. But in the instant case by the proposed auction the panchayat stands to gain. Therefore, I should necessarily hold that the petitioners not being aggrieved, the writ petitions themselves are not maintainable. 12. I am unable to agree. The petitioners’ right as taxpayers would arise only where by the auction of the panchayat a loss may result to the exchequer. But in the instant case by the proposed auction the panchayat stands to gain. Therefore, I should necessarily hold that the petitioners not being aggrieved, the writ petitions themselves are not maintainable. 12. In my view the entire confusion in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is, because he combines the right to vend together with taking of licence. In the instant cases what happened is, the panchayat, with a view to regulate the selling of mutton, earmarked certain places on the road sides which have vested in it and auctioned the right to vend, obviously to avoid favouritism or nepotism and prevent comments of that character. This apart, under the relevant rules it is only open to the panchayat to lease out in public auction any immovable property belonging to it, but it is duty bound to do so. In fact| under Chapter V relating to receipts and expenditure at page 253 of the Manual on Panchayat Administration, 1967 edition, Part I, Rule 12 states as follows: “leases of buildings and lands belonging to panchayats shall be effected by public auction, which shall be conducted by the Commissioner of the Panchayat Union, within which the panchayat lies;” This is the reason why Mr. Sethuratnam seeks to place stress upon this rule. However, he reiterates that the panchayat has not dispensed with the requirement of taking out a licence for the sale of mutton. It is by licence and effective supervision, the control is maintained. The Panchayat, as seen from its counter, has resorted to this procedure in the interest of public health by its resolution dated 13th Au gust, 1975 since before this the slaughtering of the sheep was not subject to medical checkup. In order to effectuate these regulations, the bye-laws were framed under section 180 of the Act. If this is the correct position much of the argument advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners loses its force. The two decisions cited by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners are of no assistance and they are easily distinguishable. Commissioner, Municipal Council v. Venkateswara Rao1, dealt with a case of a levy of fees on persons vending articles on road margin. The two decisions cited by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners are of no assistance and they are easily distinguishable. Commissioner, Municipal Council v. Venkateswara Rao1, dealt with a case of a levy of fees on persons vending articles on road margin. That case arose under the provisions of the Madras District Municipalities Act of 1920. A Division Bench held:- “A tax on a person’s right to vend articles on a road margin may by no stretch of the language be brought under the heading profession tax. The levy in question cannot be sustained on the basis of the express powers of taxation conferred on the Municipality. The levy in the instant case is only a fee and not a tax. It cannot be held that the levy is commensurate with the services rendered by the Municipality. The levy is unreasonable and is therefore invalid.” In the instant cases there is no levy as such. It is the right to vend in the ear marked places that is being auctioned, which as I observed above, the panchayat is entitled to and this right is sought to be equated with levy by the petitioner. In Palaniandi Chettiar v. Tiruchirapalli Municipality, by its Commissioner2, Rajagopalan, J., has held: “Section 270 of the Madras District Municipalities Act only authorises the Municipality to regulate by license the sale or exposure for sale of any article in or on any public street or part thereof. That does not mean that the Municipality can levy a licence fee for the use of the road or levy a fee on vehicles which carry goods for sale. Conveyance of goods for sale will not amount to sale or exposure for sale within the meaning of section 270 of the Act.” 13. Because section 108 of the Panchayat Act is in pari materia with section 270 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, the learned counsel seeks to use this decision in his favour. But, for the reasons already stated, this case again is not helpful to the petitioners, since there is no question of levy. 14. For all the above reasons, I held there are no merits in the writ petitions and they will stand dismissed with costs. Counsel fee of the first rest ondent-panchayat Rs. 250. One set.