Order This writ petition was orginally filed seeking a direction from this court to the officers of the Mahnar Municipality asking them to restrain respondent no.4 from operating a bus and truck stand and from realising toll from the Bus and truck operators parking their vehicles in the stand. 2. The background in which such a direction was sought was that the petitioner had entered into some kind of a settlement with the Mahnar Municipality under which the Municipal authorities purported to give the petitioner the right to collect tolls from the buses and trucks being parked within the limits of Mahnar Municipality. During the pendency of this writ petition the Special Officer of the Municipality, on 26.2.1997 issued a communication to the petitioner abrogating the settlement made in his favour. An amendment petition was then filed seeking to challenge the action of the Municipality in abrogating the earlier settlement. 3. According to the petitioner's case on 30.10.1996 the Municipality issued a notice for holding a bid for the settlement of the right to collect tolls from the bus and trucks being parked within the limits of the Municipality. In the bid held pursuant to that notice the petitioner was the highest bidder and the right to collect tolls was accordingly settled with him for a period of five years commencing from 15.11.1996 to 31.3.2002 on payment of a total of Rs. 50,000/- as the settlement money. An agreement was executed between the petitioner and the Municipality on 7.11.1996 and the petitioner deposited half of the total settlement amount as demanded by the Municipal authorities. In pursuance of the agreement the petitioner arranged to take some lands on an 'agreement for lease' from a third party and was preparing it to be used as a Bus stand when this controversy arose prompting the petitioner to come to this court in this writ petition. 4. On notices being issued by this court both the Mahnar Municipality and respondent no.4 appeared and are being represented through counsel. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 makes a definite and unambiguous statement before this court that respondent no.4 never operated any bus stand and he never collected any tolls from any buses/trucks etc., nor does he intend to do so in furture. 6. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 makes a definite and unambiguous statement before this court that respondent no.4 never operated any bus stand and he never collected any tolls from any buses/trucks etc., nor does he intend to do so in furture. 6. In view of this unequivocal statement made on behalf of respondent no.4 there is no scope of any controversy so far as respondent no.4 is concerned. 7. Learned counsel for the Municipality submitted that the action of the Municipality in issuing the notice and making the settlement of the right to collect tolls was quite misconceived as it did not have any legislative sanction. 8. Mr. Bindh Keshri Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipality submitted that the Bihar & Orissa Municipal Act did not contain any provision authorising the Municipality to collect tolls from the buses and trucks being parked within its Municipal limits and/or to settle the right of collection of tolls in favour of any person. Learned counsel submitted that such a right could be exercised only under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. He made a reference to section 96 clause (xxi) read with section 117 and submitted that it was only the Authority under the Mother Vehicles Act which could determine the places at which motor vehicles could stand either indefinitely or for a specified period of time. 9. According to the learned counsel, the action of the Municipality was, therefore, wholly without jurisdiction and consequently it did not confer any right upon the petitioner. It was further stated that the deposit made by the petitioner was offered to be paid back a week from the date of issuance of the letter on 26.2.1997. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, insisted that the Municipality had such a right and in support of the submission relied upon section 11-A (xviii) which has been introduced in the Bihar & Orissa Municipal Act by a recent amendment. Section 11-A simply authorises the Municipality to make provisions for street lighting, parking lots, bus stops and public conveniences. It does not give any authority to the Municipality to compel the operators to park their vehicles at such place and to pay tolls for such parking. He also relied upon Section 137 of the Bihar & Orissa Municipal Act but in my opinion that provision has no application in this controversy. It does not give any authority to the Municipality to compel the operators to park their vehicles at such place and to pay tolls for such parking. He also relied upon Section 137 of the Bihar & Orissa Municipal Act but in my opinion that provision has no application in this controversy. 11. In view of the stand taken by the Municipality no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 12. In case the Bus stand is to be established at Mahnar it will be so done by the concerned Transport authority under section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 13. This application is accordingly dismissed with the observations made above.