JUDGMENT Yashwant Varma,J. There is an over-bridge by the name of Narendra Mohan Setu which was constructed by the Public Works Department, Kanpur in or about 2002. On 19 February 2014, an agreement was entered into between the Municipal Commissioner and the petitioners for the maintenance of the area immediately below the over-bridge for the purpose of a green belt. The petitioners claim to have maintained the area by carrying out some plantation. However, the Court has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the agreement with the petitioners has ended with the efflux of time, the agreement being for a period of one year. The Kanpur Municipal Corporation has expressed an intent to utilize a part of the area which has earlier been maintained by the petitioners for the purpose of parking vehicles which are brought in the vicinity in connection with the work of the office of the Regional Transport Officer. The RTO office is situated approximately 500 meters away. The grievance of the petitioners is that this work should not be carried out. Upon perusing the materials which have been annexed to the petition, we find that nothing has been established to show that there is a reservation of the area under the over-bridge for the purpose of a green belt. 2. Hence, this is not a case where there has been a violation of the master plan. At the highest, the petitioners were given a limited authority of one year to maintain the area below the over-bridge by carrying out plantation. The petitioners contend that there is sufficient area within the premises of the RTO office which can be utilized for the parking of vehicles. Once no violation of law has been shown, whether parking of such vehicles should be within the precincts of the RTO office or under the over-bridge is essentially a matter of policy. The Nagar Nigam is entitled to make appropriate arrangements for the parking of vehicles. Otherwise the consequence would be that the road abutting the over-bridge would be overcrowded by vehicles, causing detriment to the public at large. 3. Hence, we see no reason to entertain the petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.