JUDGMENT A.N. Verma, J. - This petition is directly covered by a decision of this Court in writ petition No. 718 of 1989, Smt. Kusum v. Town Area, Bharpur, 1990 All LJ 977 decided on 7.5.1990 (since reported in 1990, AWC p. 858). Before we consider the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties on merits, we may mention that by a separate order passed by this Court on 24th May, 1990, the petitioners had been directed to delete the names of the first and fourth respondents from the array of the parties as they were both located within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of this Court and the cause of action in respect thereof had also arisen within the jurisdiction of the said Bench. The petitioners have in compliance of this Court's order, deleted the names of the first and fourth respondents. This petition thus stands dismissed as against the said respondents. The controversy survives only with respect to the remaining respondents 2, 3, 5 and 6 which are either Town Areas or Municipal Boards of various districts. 2. The petitioners came to this Court with the assertion that in the course of its business the buses of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation pass through the local limits of the respondent Town Areas/Municipal Boards. They also stop in the course of its business within the local limits of these authorities for the purpose of setting down or picking up passengers, but they do so on the roadside belonging to the State Government and not to these local bodies. The local bodies have hence no authority to levy and collect tehbazari from the petitioners merely because they happen to pass through the roads running through the local limits of these respondents. The petitioners have on this ground challenged the bye-laws framed by these local bodies for the levy of tehbazari for the use and occupation of public places or streets vesting or entrusted to the management of the said bodies. 3. The petitioners have on this ground challenged the bye-laws framed by these local bodies for the levy of tehbazari for the use and occupation of public places or streets vesting or entrusted to the management of the said bodies. 3. The respondents have filed counter-affidavits in which they assert that the bye-laws under which they are levying and collecting tehbazari from the petitioners are perfectly valid as they authorise levy of a fee called tebazari on these transporters for the use and occupation of the bus stands another public places belonging to or entrusted to the managements of the local bodies for the purpose of doing business thereon, namely, setting down and picking up passengers, etc. 4. The question whether these local bodies can levy tehbazari in respect of such use and occupation of the land vesting in them, came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Kusum (supra). On an exhaustive consideration of the relevant provisions and the authorities on the subject, the Court upheld the power of the Town Area to levy and collect tehbazari in respect of public roads or public streets or any other public place belonging to the local bodies or entrusted to its managements if the transporters use those places for doing business. The Bench also examined the true nature of the fee called tehbazari and came to the conclusion that in substance the levy is nothing but a charge for the use and occupation of a property belonging to the local bodies. The same view was expressed in the case of Om Prakash v. Municipal Board reported in 1987 UPLBEC 562 . It was said that the Municipal Board can levy a fee on the operation of the buses for parking their buses on the road belonging to the former like any other owner. Again in Municipal Council, Bhopal v. Sindhi Sahiti Multi Purpose Transport Co-operative Society Ltd., AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2429, the Supreme Court held that if the municipality provides for a bus stand without compelling anybody to use it, the fee can be charged on the bus operators using it. It was also observed that nobody has a fundamental right to use a land belonging to another without the person paying for it if necessary. 5. It was also observed that nobody has a fundamental right to use a land belonging to another without the person paying for it if necessary. 5. The power of the respondent local bodies, therefore, to levy tehbazari on the transporters including the petitioners, for use and occupation of the land belonging to them or entrusted to their management cannot be disputed. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have categorically asserted that the buses of the petitioners do stop on the roadside patri vesting in the them for setting down and picking up passengers, regularly. Consequently, the petitioners would be clearly covered by the dictum of this Court and of the Supreme Court in the cases cited above. The contention of the petitioners that they have a right to stop and set down passengers or pick them within the limits of the local bodies on the roadside patri vesting in these without paying tehbazari cannot be accepted. 6. Sri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that the buses of the petitioners, are stopped at the point of entry within the limits of these local Bodies and they are asked to pay tehbazari even though the buses may not be stopping there fore the purpose of picking up passengers or any other purpose within the limits of the said authorities. He urged that such an action is wholly unsupported by any law. 7. The submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason that no foundation has been laid in the petition that the respondents are realising tehbazari from the petitioners even in respect of the buses which do not stop within the limits of the local Bodies. A clear and categorical case of the respondents on the contrary is that these buses stop within the local limits of these Bodies in pursuance of the schedule or time table prescribed for these buses. Their claim, therefore, that they do not stop within the limits, cannot be accepted. 8. In any case Shri Yatindra Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 does not dispute that no tehbazari would be chargeable if the buses do not stop to use and occupy the roadside patri belonging to or managed by the Town Area or the Board. 9. In the result, subject to the observations made above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. The interim orders are discharged. 9. In the result, subject to the observations made above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. The interim orders are discharged. It will be open to the respondents to assess and realise tehbazari from the petitioners in respect of the period during which the buses of the petitioners plied through the local limits of these respondents in pursuance of the interim orders. The petitioners shall be liable to pay the amount so determined as the interim orders have been discharged by the Court.