JUDGMENT 1. - These three writ petitions, although separately filed by a number of persons jointly, are directed against the resolutions of the Municipal Board, Nokha (Annexure-1) dated 5.7.1991 concerning agenda items No. 11 and 12, where by the petitioners were restrained from using the Bus Stand at Katla Chowk and it was suggested to them to halt their buses at the side of Tent House situated in the northern side of the Bus-Stand. 2. It is alleged that petitioners of Writ Petition No. 5105 of 1991 are the holders of non-temporary stage carriage permits on Nokha to Dharnok route and the petitioners of Writ Petition No 5280 of 1991 are the holders of non-temporary stage carriage permits on Nokha to Bhojas route. The petitioners of Writ Petition No. 5281 of 1991 are the holders of non-temporary stage carriage permits on Nokha to Karnau route. As these three writ petitions raise common questions of law and facts, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order/judgment. 3. For the convenient disposal of these three writ petitions, it will be appropriate to notice the facts of Writ Petitions No. 5280 of 1991 filed by petitioners Bhagwanaram and Others because it is this writ petition, where not only a reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents but a rejoinder and a return to the rejoinder have also been filed. Of course, reply to the writ petition has been filed in other two writ petitions also almost on the same line but rejoinder and return to the rejoinder have been filed only in the writ petition filed by petitioners Bhagwanaram and Others and, therefore, it will be useful to notice the facts of that case. 4. It is alleged that Nokha Town is a centre of number of Bus- routes operating from and via Nokha. There are two Bus-stands, one is on the western side and the other is on the eastern side of the town. The bus-stand situated on the western side of the town is located in Katla Chowk. It is alleged that the road which approaches this Katla Chowk is nearly 200' wide and the buses plying on Nokha to Chaddi, Nokha to Dharnok, Nokha to Kolayat and Nokha to Jaimalsar routes etc. operate from this Bus Stand. The bus-stand situated on the western side of the town is located in Katla Chowk. It is alleged that the road which approaches this Katla Chowk is nearly 200' wide and the buses plying on Nokha to Chaddi, Nokha to Dharnok, Nokha to Kolayat and Nokha to Jaimalsar routes etc. operate from this Bus Stand. This bus-stand is situated there for the past about 30 years and it is very convenient for use by the people. On account of the density of population, market situation and the situation of important Public Offices, the passengers can conveniently board the buses from this bus-stand and, therefore, it serves pubic purpose, if this Bus-stand is allowed to continue there. 5. It was contended that in view of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which came into force with effect from 1.9.1988, Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 were framed and they were brought into force with effect from 30.6.1990. R. 5.58 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rues, 1990 (for short 'the Rules') provides that the Regional Transport Authority or District Collector & District Magistrate by notification in the Rajasthan Gazette, or by the erection of traffic signs, which are permitted for the purpose under sub-s. (1) of section 116 of the Act, or both, may, in respect of the taking up or setting down of passengers or both, by pubic service Vehicles or by any specified class of public service vehicles : (i) conditionally or unconditionally prohibit the use of any specific place or of any place of a specified nature or class, or (ii) require that within the limits of any municipality or within such other limits, as may be specified in the notification, certain specified stands or halting places only shall be so used, provided that no place which is privately owned shall be so notified except with the previous consent in writing of the owner thereof. Thus, as per r.5.58 of the Rules, the Regional Transport Authority or the District Collector & District Magistrate can only fix a bus stand or a halting place and this power is not vested in the Municipal Board and, therefore, the Municipal Board has no jurisdiction to pass a resolution restraining the petitioners and other Operators to use the Bus-stand situated in Katla Chowk and suggesting them to halt their buses at the Bus-stand constructed by the Municipal Board. According to the petitioners, they are not obliged to use any new place as bus-stand and the respondents cannot compel them to use the new place as bus-stand and, therefore, the prohibition imposed by the respondents deserves to be quashed. 6. According to the petitioners, a representation was submitted to the Chairman, Municipal Board, Nokha because the rights and interest of the petitioners were adversely affected and when it fell to deaf ears, the petitioners have filed this writ petition for quashing the aforesaid Resolution Annexure-1 dated 5.7.1991 concerning agenda items No. 11 and 12 regarding shifting of Bus-stand from Katla Chowk to Tent House, which is situated in the northern side of the Bus-stand. 7. Replies to the writ petitions were filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. It was contended that he petitioners are guilty of mis-statement of facts and, therefore, they are entitled to no relief. In this respect, it was submitted that the Bug-Stand situated at Katla Chowk has also not been notified as Bus-stand either under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 either by the Regional Transport Authority or by the District Collector and District Magistrate and therefore, the submission of the petitioners that such a Bus-stand exists there for the past 30 years is a misstatement of fact. The Bus-stand situated at Katla Chowk has not been notified as Bus-stand either by the Regional Transport Authority or by the District Collector cum District Magistrate till today. 8. It was further contended that the contention of the petitioners that the road which approaches this Katla Chowk is nearly 200' wide is totally wrong. As matter of fact, the size of the Chowk itself is 200'x200' and none of the approach roads to the Katla Chowk is not (sic) more than 40' wide including the footpath. The real road that is available for plying of the buses or for the carriage of traffic and other buses or for the carriage of traffic and other purposes or only 20' wide. It has also been contended that in Katla Chowk, not only Upper Primary Girls School, in which 550 girls are studying is situated but entire Chowk itself is a business centre where number of shops and cabins exist there. It has also been contended that in Katla Chowk, not only Upper Primary Girls School, in which 550 girls are studying is situated but entire Chowk itself is a business centre where number of shops and cabins exist there. Even the Vegetables are being sold by Vegetable Vendors on their carts throughout the day and, therefore,in such a busy place, allowing such heavy buses to enter and go causes nuisance and hence, their entry into the Katla Chowk is prone to the possibility of accidents. Thus, in order to safeguard the pubic interest and further in order to ensure pubic safety, the Municipal Board has passed the aforesaid resolution and, therefore, such a reasonable resolution should not be quashed by this Court because that will lead to danger to accident, which may turn out to be fatal. 9. It was submitted that the vehicular traffic including the traffic of heavy vehicles is normally taken out from wider routes and not through the heavily populated area. According to the respondents, it is absolutely wrong to contend that there are two Bus-stands in operation at Nokha. There is only one bus-stand which has been constructed on main Nagore Road, which is situated in Ward No. 6 and has been constructed in the year 1962, where certain private bus-operators as also the RSRTC halt their buses. Katla Chowk was not a bus-stand. The petitioners are unathorisedly halting their buses in Katla Chowk causing nuisance to the public as also danger to the life. 10. As per the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, the respondents are competent to order any person not to use a place for a particular trade if it is likely to cause nuisance or danger to public life. Girders have been put by the respondent Municipal Board in order to safeguard the public interest. so that approach of heavy Vehicles into the Katla Chowk may be avoided. There is no question of prohibiting the use of Katla Chowk for the purpose of Bus-stand either by the R. T. A. or by the District Collector because it has never been notified as a bus-stand. It is municipal property and without consent of the Municipal Board, neither any such permission nor prohibition can be made by the District Collector or the Regional Transport Authority. The Municipal Board is the sole authority to manage its affairs. 11. It is municipal property and without consent of the Municipal Board, neither any such permission nor prohibition can be made by the District Collector or the Regional Transport Authority. The Municipal Board is the sole authority to manage its affairs. 11. It was contended that even as per r.5.58 of the Rules, if the RTA or the District Collector wants to establish any bus-stand or halting place, on a land which belongs to Municipal Board then such a bus-stand or halting place has to be notified in the Rajasthan Gazette after consulting the Municipal Board. The R.T.A. or the District Collector has only authority to notify a particular place as a halting place or bus-stand within the municipal area as per sub-clause (ii) of clause(1) of r.5.58 of the Rules. As per sub-clause (i) of clause (1) of r. 5.58 of the Rules, the RTA or the Collector may conditionally or unconditionally prohibit the use of any specified place or of any place of a specified nature or case. That is a general prohibition which does not refer to the municipal area and, therefore, prohibition has to be made only in respect of other areas but sofaras the municipal areas are concerned, sub-cause (ii) of clause (1) of r.5.58 applies. The municipal Board has already constructed a bus stand in the year 1962 and the RSRTC and other private bus-onerators use that bus. According to the respondents, r.5.58 of the Rules is not applicable to the use of the Katla Chowk as a halting place or a bus-stand because Katla Chowk is situated in the Municipal area and no such notification has been issued notifying Katla Chowk as a halting place or a Bus stand under r.5.58 of the Rules and, therefore, r.5.58 of the Rules read with section 1160) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act is totally inapplicable to the case on hand. 12. According to the respondents, it is the Municipal Board, which has to look after the interest of the public at large and not the private bus-operators. It was further submitted that for the beautification of this Chowk, a contract has been given to the Rajasthan State Bridge Corporation but that work had to be stopped because of the ad-interim order passed by this Court and, therefore, this writ petition may be disposed of at an early date. 13. It was further submitted that for the beautification of this Chowk, a contract has been given to the Rajasthan State Bridge Corporation but that work had to be stopped because of the ad-interim order passed by this Court and, therefore, this writ petition may be disposed of at an early date. 13. Alongwith reply to the writ petition, site-plan Annexure-R.1 has been filed, which shows that there are approach roads to this Katla Chowk, which are 16' or 15'.6" wide. Copy of the letter written by Head Mistress of Smt. Gopi Devi Baheti Govt. Upper Primary School, Nokha to the Chairman, Municipal Board, Nokha has been filed marked as Annexure-R.2 whereby a request has been made to the Municipal Board to stop the use of the Chowk as bus-stand in order to ensure safety to the children. The letter Annexure-R.3 dated 18.1.1991 has also been filed whereby certain sanctions have been received for the beautification of this Chowk. 14. A rejoinder has been filed on behalf to the petitioners wherein the contentions raised in he writ petition were reiterated and it was submitted that halting place is 120' away from the said School and the buses enter into Katla Chowk from Nokha to Panchu Road and leave the chowk by the same road. According to the petitioners, the road is 40' wide. The affidavits of Shri Ram Niwas and Shri Babulal who are the residents of Katla Chowk have also been filed wherein they have stated that the operation of buses from Katla Chowk is not only useful but for the larger interest of the public for safety. It was further submitted that on 7.11.1992, the President Nokha Nagrik Sangrash Samiti, Nokha ExSarpanch Panchu, Ex-Pradhan Panchayat Samiti Nokha Ex-Sarpanch Bharamarsar and Shri Chunnilal Indaiya, MLA Nokha and various other persons including Ex-Sarpanch Sadhna Submitted a representation to the District Collector cum District Magistrate, Bikaner that Nokha bus-stand should not be shifted and the District Collector ordered on 7.11.1992 that if there are objections from the villagers, the said bus-stand be not removed.The copy of the representation as also order passed thereon have been filed marked as Annexure-5. According to the vetitioners, the Chairman, Municipal Board, Nokha happens to be politically prejudiced against them and,therefore, he is taking actions against them. 15. According to the vetitioners, the Chairman, Municipal Board, Nokha happens to be politically prejudiced against them and,therefore, he is taking actions against them. 15. It was contended that the respondent Municipal Board lacks jurisdiction to specify any place as a bus-stand and, therefore, it cannot pass any order for the shifting of the parking and halting place from Katla Chowk to a place near Tent House. According to the petitioners, simply because the Municipal Board has constructed a bus-stand, it has no right to shift parking and halting place from Katla Chowk to Tent House as has been held by a number of decisions of this Court. After the case was partly argued, certain affidavits of Ward Members and others have been filed alongwith an application dated 2.12.1992. 16. A counter to the rejoinder has also been filed on 25.1.1993 i.e. after the arguments started in this case. It was contended that the unauthorised use of a particular place belonging to the Municipal Board by the Private Bus-Operators as a halting place cannot create any right in their favour in perpetuity and the local authorities are not only duty bound but have a right to ask the operators to refrain from halting their buses at such a place, if it is of the opinion that it will be injurious to the public health and safety. It was submitted that the provisions of the Act and the Rules are only enabling provisions. They do not take away the powers of the Municipal Board to regulate its own affairs. The resolution will show that the entire matter was initiated after the letter was received from the Head Mistress of Smt. Gopi Devi Baheti Govt. Upper Primary School, Nokha and, therefore, it is wrong to contend that the letter Annexure-R.2 has been obtained from the Head Mistress only in order to bolster up the case of the respondents. 17. According to the respondents, r. 5.58 of the Rules is only a subordinate legislation which cannot override the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. The Girders that were put to check the traffic in the Chowk have now been removed. Actually, the municipal land is being used by the private bus- operators without paying any fee or halting charges, which is against the Rules. The Girders that were put to check the traffic in the Chowk have now been removed. Actually, the municipal land is being used by the private bus- operators without paying any fee or halting charges, which is against the Rules. Alongwith this Counter to the rejoinder, affidavits of Shri Satyanarain and Shri Ramkishan, who carry their shops in Katla Chowk have been filed marked as Annexure- R. 2/4 and 2/5 respectively, in which, it has been claimed that allowing this chowk as a halting place or a bus stand by private bus-operators is hazardous to public life and safety. Moreover, in order to attract the passengers, the private bus-operators after starting their buses usually blow the horn for a long time, which creates nuisance not only to the Shop-keepers but also to the school children. It was further submitted that the bus-stand constructed by the Municipal Board is only at a distance of one furlong from Katla Chowk. That bus stand is situated in Ward No. 6 near the Railway Station. 18. I have heard Mr. B. L. Maheshwari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. S. K. Vyas, the learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. M. S. Singhvi, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 Municipal Board, Nokha. I have carefully gone through the record of the case. 19. The contention of Mr. B. L. Maheshwari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that as per the provisions of sections 68(r) and 76 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Bus-stands and halting places have to be determined by the RTA or the District Collector and it is under the order of the RTA or the District Collector that such Bus-stands or halting places can be shifted from one place to another. They can pass certain prohibitory orders regarding use of any particular place as a bus-stand or a halting place. The provisions of sections 68(r) and 76 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 have been adopted ad-verbatim in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and they find mention in sections 96 (2) (xxi) and 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. In other words, the provisions of sections 96 (2) (xxi) and 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act are in peri materia with the provisions of sections 68(r) and 76 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In other words, the provisions of sections 96 (2) (xxi) and 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act are in peri materia with the provisions of sections 68(r) and 76 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Sections 96 (2) (xxi) and sections 116 (1) and 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act read as under : "96(2). Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, rules under this section may be made with respect to all or any of the following matters, namely (xxi) prohibiting the picking up or setting down or passengers by stage or contract carriages as specified places or in specified areas or at places other than duly notified stands or halting places and requiring the driver of a stage carriage to stop and remain stationary for a reasonable time when so required by a passengers desiring to board or alight from the vehicle at a notified halting place." "117. Parking places and halting station. The State Govt. or any authority authorised in this behalf by the State Govt. may in consultation with the local authority having jurisdiction in the area concerned, determine places at which motor vehicles may stand either indefinitely or for a specified period of time, and may determine the places at which public service vehicle may stop for a longer time than is necessary for the taking up and setting down of passengers." "S.116(1). Power to erect traffic signs-(1) (a) The State Govt. or any authority authorised in this behalf by the State Govt. may cause or permit traffic signs to be placed or erected in any public place for the purpose of bringing to public notice any speed limits fixed under sub-section (2) of section 112 or any prohibitions or restrictions imposed under section 115 or generally for the purpose of regulating motor vehicle traffic. (b) A State Govt. or any authority authorised in this behalf by the State Govt., may by notification in the official Gazette or by the erection at suitable places of the appropriate traffic sign referred to in Part A of the Schedule, designate certain roads as main roads for the purposes of the driving regulations made by the Central Government." Thus, it is clear that the State Govt. may in consultation with the local authority having jurisdiction in the area concerned, determine places at which motor vehicles may stand either indefinitely or for a specified period of time, and may determine the places at which public service vehicles may stop for an longer time than is necessary for the taking up and setting down of passengers. It is further clear that in exercise of the aforesaid powers, read with sub-section(1) of section 116 of the Act, the State Govt. has farmed the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990. R5.58 of Rules reads as under : R.5.58. Stands and halting places.-(1) A regional Transport Authority or District Collector & District Magistrate by notification in the Rajasthan Gazette, or by the erection of traffic signs which are permitted for the purpose under sub-section (1) of section 116 of the Act, or both, may in respect of the taking up or setting down of passengers or both, by public service vehicles or by any specified class of public service vehicles (i) conditionally or unconditionally prohibit the use of any specified place or of any place of a specified nature or class, or (ii) require that within the limits of any municipality or within such other limits, as may be specified in the notification, certain specified stands or halting places not (sic) only shall be so used : provided that no place which is privately owned shall be so notified except with the previous consent in writing of the owner thereof." According to this rule,only the RTA or the District Collector cum District Magistrate can specify a particular place as a bus stand or a halting place by notification in the Official Gazette and, therefore, the Municipal Board has no authority whatsoever to designate any place as a halting place or a bus stand. 20. In this respect, it was submitted by Mr. M. S. Sirrghvi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Municipal Board the these provisions are enabling provisions and if a particular place is not notified as a bus stand or a halting place either by the District Collector cum District Magistrate or by the RTA, it does not mean that the private bus-operators have been given an authority to decide a particular place as a halting place, although it belongs to the Municipality. If a particular order has been passed by the District Collector cum District Magistrate or by the RTA that a particular place will be used as a bus-stand or a halting place, it is no doubt true that the Municipal Board has no authority to change that bus-stand or halting place but when no such bus-stand or halting place has been notified by the appropriate competent authority then the Municipal Board or the Municipal Council, as the case may be,is free to control, guide and manage its own affairs. 21. It was contended by Mr. Singhvi, that it is not for the private bus-operators to advise the Municipality as to how it should utilise its own Chowk i.e. whether it should allow vegetable vendors to conduct their business in the Chowk or whether it should allow the sundry shop-keepers to operate their business by stalling cabins in the Chowk or whether it should allow private bus-operators to use this Chowk as a bus stand or' a halting place. Simply because, the petitioners are unauthorisedly using this Chowk for a particular span of time, it does not invest them with an authority to advise the Municipal Board that it should allow private bus-operators to use this chowk as a bus-stand or a halting place and should not allow all other business activities in Chowk. The decision about public interest and public safety cannot be entrusted to private bus-operators. The Municipal Board being an elected body is required to decide what will serve the best interest of the people at large of the locality. Thus, if the Municipal Board has taken a particular decision in the interest of the people at large and to ensure safety then that decision has to be given due weight. 22. It was further contended by Mr. Singhvi that it is not a case of change of bus-stand because no notified bus-stand exists there. If a particular place is being unauthorisedly used by the private bus-operators as a halting or parking place and if the Municipal Board feels that it is against the public interest and public safety and such a use in prone to accident, it has all rights to prohibit the use of that place by the private bus- operators because that land belongs to the Municipal Board and not to the private Bus-operators. When Private Bus-operators are unauthorisedly using that Chowk as a halting or parking place, though the land belongs to the Municipal Board and that land has not been notified as a Bus-Stand or halting place either by the District Collector cum District Magistrate or by the RTA then no right is conferred on the Private Bus-Operators to claim any right over this land. In this respect, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in M.P.S.R.T.C. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (1984 RLR-307) Mr. Singhvi has further placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Chhogalal v. State (S.B.C.W. No. 115/1991, decided on 11.12.1991) . I will discuss these authorities a little later. 23. Mr. Maheshwari, however, drew my attention to a decision of the Bombay High Court in Noshir v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay(AIR 1989 Bombay-382) , wherein a learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court has held that there is no authority given to the Municipal Corporation either to regulate the traffic or to charge a fee for the purpose of parking of vehicles. The said function has been specifically given to the police under the Bombay Police Act and the said function has been advisedly kept out of the purview of the Municipal Corporation. The use of public streets in modern times is for the vehicular traffic. Regulation of vehicular traffic is the necessary ingredient of the use of the vehicles on public street. The function of regulating the traffic and the parking of vehicles is that of the police and not of the Municipal Corporation. Unless there is a specific provision which authorises the Municipal Authorities to collect the parking charges, such a charge will have to be characterised as unauthorised. It was further held that in fiscal matters, it is not permissible to give powers to the authorities to impose a tax or fees by implication. There has to be a specific legislation authorising the levying of either tax or fee. Such a provision being absent in the present enactment, it will have to be held that the action on the part of the respondents in enforcing the impugned Pay and Park Scheme is unlawful and without the authority of law. It was also held as under : "Merely because, the public streets vest in the Corporation, the same cannot be treated as an individual's private property. It was also held as under : "Merely because, the public streets vest in the Corporation, the same cannot be treated as an individual's private property. The same vest in the Corporation for the benefit of its user by the citizens. An essential user of the streets is for passage of vehicular traffic. Parking is an incident of the user of vehicle on public streets. As long as, the said parking is incidental to the user of the public streets, the same cannot be objected to by the Municipal Authorities in the manner they have sought to do by introducing the impugned Pay and Park Scheme." It was, therefore, contended by Mr. Maheshwari that the Municipal Board is not entrusted with an authority to decide about a particular place as a bus-stand or a halting place. It is only the RTA or the District Collector cum District Magistrate who can specify a particular place as a bus-stand or a halting place. 24. Mr. Maheshwari next drew my attention to a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Municipal Board v. S.T.A., Rajasthan ( AIR 1965 SC 458 ) . That decision relates to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Old Act.). While discussing the provisions of the Old Act, their lordships of the Supreme Court have held that a bus-stand means a place where bus services commence or terminate. It is the place where the buses stand for commencing its transport service or where they stand after terminating their service, that is popularly known as a bus-stand. Their lordships further observed as follows : "The word "places at which the motor vehicles may stand either indefinitely or for a specific period of time" in Section 76 cannot be reasonably interpreted to include a bus stand in the above sense. When it is remembered that Chapter VI in which section 76 occurs, intended to deal with the control of traffic, it becomes clear that the determination of places at which the motor vehicles may stand either indefinitely or for a specified period of time means, the "determination of parking places". While the determination of places at which public vehicles may stop for a longer time than is necessary for the taking up and setting down of passengers means "halting stations for public service vehicles". While the determination of places at which public vehicles may stop for a longer time than is necessary for the taking up and setting down of passengers means "halting stations for public service vehicles". All things considered, it appears that section 76 has nothing to do with the provision for bus-stand." There is no quarrel about this authority but according to the para meters laid down by their lordships of the Supreme Court, Katla Chowk is used not only as a bus-stand but also as a halting place and this Chowk has never been notified either as a bus stand or as a halting place by any competent authority i.e. the RTA or the District Collector cum District Magistrate. 25. The only contention of the petitioners is that this Chowk is being used as a bus-stand or a halting place by them for the last 30 years. This contention has been disputed by Mr. M. S. Singhvi. Be that as it may, an ancillary argument was also raised by Mr. Maheshwari that right to life includes the right to livelihood. The sweep of the right of life conferred by Art. 21 is wide and far reaching. It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as for example, by the imposition and execution of the death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make-life impossible to live. In support of these submissions, Mr. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make-life impossible to live. In support of these submissions, Mr. Maheshwari has placed reliance on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal, Corporation (AIR 1986 SC-180) , wherein their lordships of the Supreme Court felt that although deprivation of a right to livelihood may result in deprivation of right to live but at the same time, their lordships have accepted the contention that the Municipal Corporation has a right to remove encroachments from pavements and public streets and to regulate its affairs according to law. 26. Simply because, the private bus-operators are denied a right to halt their buses in Katla Chowk and to use that place as a bus-stand, it does not mean that they are deprived of their right to livelihood. The petitioners have not been deprived from taking up and setting down the passengers of Nokha Town. They have only been restrained to use Katla Chowk as a Bus stand or a halting place because this Chowk has never been notified as a bus stand or a halting place either by the District Collector cum District Magistrate or the RTA and the use of this chowk by the private operators as a bus-stand or a halting place was causing nuisance to the public at large and this use may be prone to fatal accidents and may cause harm to the public safety. Regulation of such an important work by the Municipal Board cannot be treated as a denial of the right of livelihood as claimed by Mr. Maheshwari and, therefore, Olga Telli's case (supra) will not help the case of the petitioners. Rather, it strengthens the case of the Municipal Board that they have a right to regulate their own affairs and this is what they have done. They have asked the private bus-operators not to use this Chowk as a halting place or as a bus-stand. 27. The Resolution (Annexure-1) dated 5.7.1991, which has been passed by the respondent Municipal Board is in two parts. The resolution on agenda item No. 11 says that the areas of Sadar Bazar, Marothi Chowk and Katla Chowk are heavily populated areas. 27. The Resolution (Annexure-1) dated 5.7.1991, which has been passed by the respondent Municipal Board is in two parts. The resolution on agenda item No. 11 says that the areas of Sadar Bazar, Marothi Chowk and Katla Chowk are heavily populated areas. There is one school in Katla Chowk and therefore, the entrance and exist of heavy vehicles in Katla Chowk could be stopped and, therefore, a unanimous resolution was passed to stop the use of Katla Chowk as a bus-stand or a halting place by the private bus-operators. The resolution on agenda item No.12 is that efforts be made by the Chairman of the Municipal Board that these private bus-operators should be allowed to stop and halt their buses at the bus-stand constructed by the Municipal Board. So far as the resolution of agenda item No.12 is concerned, that is always subject to the approval of the RTA. Only interim arrangement was suggested that till it is decided by the competent authority, these private bus-operators should use the bus-stand constructed by the Municipal Board. Thus, resolution on agenda item No. 12 is only a suggestion but by resolution on agenda item No.11, the Municipal Board has completely stopped the use of Katla Chowk by the private bus-operators as a bus stand or as a halting place. 28. Section 248 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 deals with Regulation of certain trades. Thus, resolution on agenda item No. 12 is only a suggestion but by resolution on agenda item No.11, the Municipal Board has completely stopped the use of Katla Chowk by the private bus-operators as a bus stand or as a halting place. 28. Section 248 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 deals with Regulation of certain trades. Section 248 (1) (s) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 reads as under : "S. 248 (1)-If the board is satisfied that any building or place used or intended by any person to be used, (s) as a manufactory or place of business of any other kind from which offensive or unwholesome smell, fume soot or dust arises or which may involve risk or fire, is, or is likely by reason of such use and of its situation, to become a nuisance to the neighborhood or is so used or so situated as to be likely to be dangerous to life, health or property, the board may, by written notice require the owner or occupier, (i) at once to discontinue the use of, or at once to desist from carrying out, or allowing to be carried out, the intention so to use, such place, or (ii) to use it in such manner or after such structural alterations as the board in such notice prescribes so that it may not become, or may be no longer, a nuisance or dangerous to life, health or property, or (iii) to remove it to such place as may be demarcated: Provided that no requisition of the nature specified in clause (i) shall be made in respect of any of the occupations specified in clauses (a) to (j) carried on by the owner or occupier himself or by a member or members of his family as a cottage industry unless the board provides some other place for carrying on such occupation." Thus, if the use of any place by any person is likely to cause any nuisance to the neighborhood or is likely to be dangerous to life, health or property, the Board may ask that person to discontinue the use of that place and this is what the Municipal Board has done as per Resolution on agenda item No.11 and the law authorises it to demarcate a particular place for that use and this is what it has done vide Resolution on agenda item No.12. 29. 29. In M.P.S.R.T.C. and another v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (1984 RLR-307) , a learned single Judge of this Court has held as under: "However, the position will be different, if Nimbahera is a terminal or terminus of the route and the vehicle is kept there on the municipal land for hours together. In these circumstances, the municipality can compel the permit holder of the vehicle, may be a stage carriage permit holder, contract permit holder or a public carrier holder or private carrier holder not to use this land for halting or parking purposes. It is the duty of every transport owner or the permit holders to arrange at the place of terminus halting or parking place in the shape of garrage or otherwise at their own cost. If the municipality provides the facility, which does not fall within the purview of its functions and if the owner of the vehicle accepts the facility voluntarily and uses the personal land of municipality, which is not a regular road for the purpose of halting, then the Municipality has a right to deny the facilities so provided, unless the person plying the vehicle enters into a contract on the terms and conditions laid down by the municipality for the payment of fees on account of use and occupation of the personal property of the municipality, which does not fall within the purview of route/road. We will have to differentiate between the two, namely, use of municipal road and use of municipal land. The free movement of any motor vehicle is a must and municipality has no right whatsoever to realise the fee, as it falls within the purview of toll or tax." There is no doubt that Katla Chowk belongs to the Municipal Board and the Private Bus-Operators are using this Chowk as a Bus-stand or a halting place at their own sweet will, without consent of the Municipal Board. This Chowk has never been notified as a Bus-stand or a halting place either by the RTA or by the District Collector cum District Magistrate and, therefore, no right is conferred on these Private Bus-operators to use this chowk either as a bus-stand or as a halting place. If the Municipal Board feels that on account of the existence of Govt. If the Municipal Board feels that on account of the existence of Govt. Upper Primary School, where about 550 girls are studying and further on account of heavy rush in the chowk, as it happens to be busy market centre, the use of this chowk as a bus-stand or a halting place is hazardous to the public life and is causing nuisance, the Municipal Board is within its rights to 'prohibit the use of this chowk by the Private Bus-Operators as a Bus-stand or a halting place. It is not a case of use of aroad by buses plying on the route. It is a case where this particular Chowk is being used by the Private Bus-Opertors as a Bus-stand or a halting place though it has never been notified as a bus-stand or a halting place either by the District Collector cum District Magistrate or by the RTA and this Chowk belongs to the Municipal Board. The Municipal Board is free to manage its affairs according to law and these Private Bus-Operators cannot raise any finger against the Municipal Board for the use of that particular place in the manner they like, keeping in view the public interest. 30. The same view has been expressed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Chhogalal's case (supra). Thus, the view taken by Rajasthan High Court is totally different from the view taken by Bombay High Court. In Noshir's case (supra), which has been cited by Mr. Maheshwari, the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act did not provide such thing and the Bombay Police Act provided for the regulation of the traffic and under those circumstances, the learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court has rendered that decision. However, in view of the Division Bench's decision of this court in M.P.S.R.T.C.'s case (supra) and the single Bench's decision of this Court in Chhogalal's case (supra), the view taken by Bombay High Court cannot prevail go far as Rajasthan is concerned. It is true that the Municipal Board has no right to establish a bus-stand or a halting place as per r.5.58 of the Rules but it has a right to stop the bus-operators from using Katla Chowk, which belongs to it and has never been notified as a Bus-stand or a halting place, and suggesting them to use a particular place if they so like. If these Private Bus-operators use this Bus-stand, which has been constructed by the Municipal Board, as per the decision of this Court in M.P.S.R.T.C.'s case (supra), the Municipal Board will have a right to charge fees from them for its use. Now, it is up to these Private Bus-Operators to use that Bus stand, which has been constructed by the Municipal Board or not because it does not vest in the powers of the Municipal Board to establish a bus-stand. However, it is made clear that these Private Bus-operators have no right to use any other place of the Municipal Board as a Bus-stand or a halting place without prior permission of the Municipal Board and even a public road cannot be used as a halting place without prior permission of the Municipal Board. Therefore, if these Private Bus-operators intend to use any other place of Nokha Town for the purposes of Bus-stand or a halting place, they will have to seek permission from the Municipal Board or else, they should move appropriate authority for the establishment of a bus-stand or a halting place. If they do not do so and use any other land which belongs to the Municipal Board, they will have to be abide by the terms and conditions put forth by the Municipal Board. 31. Mr. M. S. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Board has stated that if these private Bus-operators use the bus-stand, which has been constructed by the Municipal Board, the Municipal Board will not charge any fees from them till the matter is decided by appropriate authority. New, it is for these Private Bus-operators to take this suggestion or leave it. As stated above, these Private Bus-operators cannot be permitted to use this Katla Chowk as a bus-stand or a halting place as of right and the Municipal Board is well within its rights to prohibit its use for the purpose of Bus-stand or a halting place. 32. It was contended by Mr. Singhvi that one who does not come to the Court with clean hands, he is not entitled to any relief. Mr. 32. It was contended by Mr. Singhvi that one who does not come to the Court with clean hands, he is not entitled to any relief. Mr. Singhvi has submitted that in this case, the petitioners have stated that Katla Chowk is being used as a bus-stand for the past 30 years and its approach road is 200' wide whereas even as per their own documents, the approach road is 40' wide and as per the Municipal Board, it is about 20' wide. Now, it is admitted case of the petitioners that this chowk has never been notified as a bus stand or a halting place either by the District Collector cum District Magistrate or the RTA. It was, therefore, contended by Mr. Singhvi that the petitioners have alleged these wrong facts and, therefore, they are entitled to no relief. In this respect, reliance has been placed on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Dr. Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana (AIR 1983 SC-622) , wherein it has been held that such a conduct disentitles the petitioners from getting any relief. 33. Reliance was also placed on a decision of this Court in Nandlal v. STAT (1977 WLN-587) , wherein a learned single Judge has held that the power which the High Court has under Art.226 of the Constitution, is a discretionary one. It would refuse to exercise in favour of a party if it makes a false statement or suppresses facts in his application to the court. Mr. Singhvi has submitted that on account of these mis-statements of facts, the petitioners are entitled to no relief. 34. Mr. Maheshwari has submitted. that it was never contended or alleged by the petitioners that Katla Chowk is a notified bus- stand or a halting place. What the petitioners contended was that this chowk is being used as a bus-stand or a halting place for the past 30 years. That was in normal parlance. When the petitioners have never stated that Katla Chowk is a notified bus- stand or a halting place, they cannot be held guilty of suppression of material facts. What the petitioners contended was that this chowk is being used as a bus-stand or a halting place for the past 30 years. That was in normal parlance. When the petitioners have never stated that Katla Chowk is a notified bus- stand or a halting place, they cannot be held guilty of suppression of material facts. I will not like to go into detail about this controversy but this much is clear that the petitioners should have made it clear that this Katla Chowk has never been notified as a Bus stand or a halting place but it is a bus-stand where the Buses halt and used to halt for the past 30 years. Further, in the writ petition, it was submitted that the road leading to this chowk is 200' wide whereas as per the petitioners themselves, the approach road is about 40' wide. Thus, such an attempt on the part of the petitioners cannot be appreciated, if not depricated. 35. It was next submitted by Mr. Singhvi that when no right vests in the petitioners, they are entitled to no writ of mandamus. In this respect, he has placed reliance on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in M. S. Jain v. State of Haryana (AIR 1977 SC-276) , wherein it was observed as under : "It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something." It is no doubt true that I have come to a firm-conclusion that no right vests in the petitioners to use Katla Chowk as a bus-stand or a halting place because it has never been notified as a Bus stand or a halting place either by the District Collector cum District Magistrate or by the RTA and, therefore, the Municipal Board is well within its rights to regulate the traffic in the Chowk. Thus, in this view of the matter, no writ of mandamus can be granted in favour of the petitioners. 36. Thus, in this view of the matter, no writ of mandamus can be granted in favour of the petitioners. 36. In this respect, reliance was placed on certain affidavits which have been filed on behalf of both the parties. They are not affidavits in the eye of law and so, they need not be looked into. Moreover, they were filed after arguments in the case started and therefore, they can at best be treated as an attempt to bolster up one's own case so far as Annexure-5 is concerned, it is only an application, which has been made to the Collector and the Collector has forwarded it to the Chairman, Municipal Board for consideration. It is not an order but the application has been forwarded for necessary action. Thus, this cannot be treated to be an order passed under r.5.58 of the Rules. As stated above the resolution on agenda item No.11 has been passed unanimously by the Municipal Board and, therefore, that cannot be interfered with. 37. It was next contended by Mr. Singhvi that simply because Private Bus-Operators were using this Chowk as a Bus stand or a halting place on account of concession made by the Municipal Board, that concession on the part of the Municipal Board does not confer,any right on them to use that Chowk as a Bus-stand or a halting place as of right and no such mandamus can be issued against the Municipal Board not to withdraw that concession. In this respect, reliance has been placed on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Rajalakshmiah v. State of Mysore (AIR 1967 SC-993) , wherein it was held that concession cannot be claimed as a matter of right and a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to the commanding authority to show indulgencle on account of any earlier concession. 38. It was lastly contended by Mr. Singhvi that from the facts and circumstances of this case and the documents supplied, it is clear that Katla Chowk is a busy Chowk. It is surrounded by shops. The size of this Chowk is about 200' x 200' and in this Chowk, certain vegetable sellers carry their business on hand carts, certain cabins are fixed in this chowk, where shopkeepers carry their business and certain taxies also stand there. It is surrounded by shops. The size of this Chowk is about 200' x 200' and in this Chowk, certain vegetable sellers carry their business on hand carts, certain cabins are fixed in this chowk, where shopkeepers carry their business and certain taxies also stand there. Thus, it is a highly busy market centre and, therefore, the buses should not be allowed to halt there in such a small chowk, the size of which is about 200'x 200' because on account of blowing of horns for attracting the passengers, the Buses causes nuisance and further ingrace and outgrace of the Buses is prone to cause accidents and may prove to be hazardous to human life on account of the existence of a Girls School, where 550 Girls are studying and most of them are urchins. It is not necessary that no accident has taken place so far. It is not obligatory on the part of the Municipal Board to take a decision to disallow the use of this Chowk only after a fatal accident takes place. If the entry of buses into this Chowk is prone to accidents or hazardous to human life then that possibility also has to be kept in view by the Municipal Board in allowing or disallowing the use of a particular place. Thus, the resolution on agenda item No.11 of the Municipal Board cannot be said to be unjust and unreasonable and, therefore, an act which is just and reasonable should not be interfered with. In this respect, reliance has been placed on a decision of their lordship of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Swalleh IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Merrut (AIR 1988 SC-95) . 39. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances of this case, I am firmly of the view that as per the provisions of section 248 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, the Municipal Board is well within its powers to prohibit the Private Bus- Operators to make use of Katla Chowk as Bus-stand or a halting place because the use of Katla Chowk as a Bus-stand or a halting place causes nuisance to the public at large and it is hazardous to public safety and prone to accidents and therefore, the resolution on agenda item No.11 appears to be just and reasonable and, therefore, it cannot be interfered with. 40. 40. By resolution on agenda item No.12, the Municipal Board has suggested that till the matter is decided by any appropriate competent authority, the Private Bus-Operators may make use of the Bus-stand which has been constructed by it. The Municipal Board has offered that it will not charge any fee for its use till the matter is decided by any competent authority. It is for the Bus-Operators to accept that proposal and (or) not to accept it. However, it is made clear that in view of the ratio of the decision rendered by this Court in M.P.S.R.T.C.'s case(supra), the Private Bus-Operators will not be entitled to make use of any land which belongs to the Municipal Board as a Bus Stand or a halting place without its prior permission and without payment of fees. The resolution on agenda item No.12 is not mandatory in character but it is only suggestive. 41. In this view the matter, the resolution (Annexure-1) dated 5.7.1991 passed by the Municipal Board Nokha on agenda items No.11 and 12 cannot be quashed, in view of the aforesaid findings and observations. 42. In the result, I find no force in these writ petitions and, they are, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******