JUDGEMENT 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add Sri Baskit Rai, the settlee of the motor car stand, Hajipur Railway Station, as party respondent No. 4 in the course of the day. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 5.8.2010 passed by respondent No. 3, the Divisional Rail Manager (Commercial), Sonepur, Chapra by which he has permitted the newly added respondent No. 4 to collect the parking fee from the owners of the Tata Magic Vehicles also within the 670 Sq.m. parking area earmarked for him. 3. The petitioner is a settlee of Tempo Stand at Hajipur Railway Station over an area of 400 Sq.m. and lastly on the expiry of the period of settlement on 9.8.2010 the same has been extended for a further period of ninety days from 10.8.2010 or until the disposal of the next tender. Pursuant to the said settlement he has been collecting the prescribed parking fee from the owners of the tempos. The petitioner claims that the Magic vehicles produced by Tata Motors are also being used as taxi for carriage of passengers and were being parked earlier exclusively in the parking area allotted to him but by the impugned letter dated 5.8.2010 the respondent No. 4 has also been permitted to allow parking of the said vehicles in the parking area of Motor Car Stand, Hajipur Railway Station with him. The respondent No. 4 is settlee of 670 Sq.m. parking space at the Hajipur Railway Station premises for the said motor car stand for the period from 18.11.2009 to 17.11.2012 but by the impugned order dated 5.8.2010 he has been permitted to charge parking fee from the owners of the Magic vehicles also in the parking area allotted to him. 4. According to learned counsel for . the petitioner this has caused uncalled for loss to the petitioner since such vehicles were being parked earlier in his allotted parking area. It is the submission of learned counsel that earlier the said Magic vehicles were also being treated as tempo and required to park exclusively in the tempo stand allotted to him. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said vehicle is a commercial vehicle being a 4-7 seater vehicle according to the literature from the internet produced by him which specifically states that it is a four-wheeler suitable for rural passengers. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said vehicle is a commercial vehicle being a 4-7 seater vehicle according to the literature from the internet produced by him which specifically states that it is a four-wheeler suitable for rural passengers. It is powered by a 16-horsepower, 700 cc diesel engine. It is thus submitted by learned counsel that it is in the nature of a tempo and it should be permitted for parking exclusively in the tempo stand. 6. Learned counsel submits that if that was not the position, then there was no occasion for the D.R.M. to have issued letter dated 5.8.2010 permitting the respondent No. 4 to get the said vehicles parked in the parking area of the motor car stand settled with him. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent Railways, on the other hand, submits that it is evident from Annexure-2, letter dated 16.11.2009, by which the parking area of motor car stand in the Hajipur Railway Station premises has been allotted to respondent No. 4 that he was permitted to realize parking fees from the owners of all types of four-wheeler vehicles. It is urged by learned counsel that Magic vehicle being a four-wheeler vehicle the normal presumption would be that under the terms of letter dated 16.11.2009 such vehicles were also to be parked in the parking area allotted to respondent No. 4. 8. Learned counsel also submits that the impugned letter dated 5.8.2010 appears to have been necessitated on account of the difficulties created by the petitioner with regard to the parking of the Magic vehicle in the parking area allotted to respondent No. 4 which is evident from the tenor of the said letter. 9. On a consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and for the Railways, this Court does not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is evident that the petitioner was allotted settlement of tempo stand for the parking of tempos. The normal connotation of tempos is that they are three-wheeler vehicles. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to rely upon a vehicle brochure of Bajaj Tempo Traveller which indicates that even a much larger four-wheeler vehicle can be called tempo but the said submission is wholly misplaced. It is open to any vehicle manufacturing company to give any name to its product. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to rely upon a vehicle brochure of Bajaj Tempo Traveller which indicates that even a much larger four-wheeler vehicle can be called tempo but the said submission is wholly misplaced. It is open to any vehicle manufacturing company to give any name to its product. The said vehicle is admittedly a 12 seater large vehicle in the nature of Maxi Taxi or Mini Bus and there is no similarity at all with the tempos as understood in common parlance. 10. It is further evident from the letter dated 16.11.2009 (Annexure-2) by which settlement of the motor car stand was made with respondent No. 4 that he was permitted to charge parking fees from the owners of all types of four-wheeler vehicles. It is not disputed that Magic vehicle of Tata Motors is a four-wheeler vehicle and for the said reason the respondent No. 4 is entitled for collecting parking fees in the parking stand settled with him. Although the impugned order dated 5.8.2010 does not specifically say that the respondent No. 4 was entitled for parking of the said vehicle earlier, rather of permission being granted to do so with immediate effect, that cannot mean that the petitioner had any right for the parking of such large four-wheeler vehicles, which cannot be called a tempo in any sense, in the tempo stand allotted to him. 11. There seems to be some justification in the submission of learned counsel for the Railways that the letter has been necessitated on account of the obstruction being put by the petitioner to the parking of such Magic vehicle in the motor car parking stand allotted to respondent No. 4. 12. Be that as it may, it is evident that nothing has been brought on the record by the petitioner to show that he had any such right of parking of such four-wheeler Magic vehicle in. the tempo stand which has been allotted to him. That being the position, he cannot make any grievance regarding the permission granted to respondent No. 4 for the parking of four-wheeler Magic vehicle in the parking stand settled with him. 13. The writ application, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.