Back
2006 Supreme(Gau) 421
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, J.
Bus Parichalana Samity
Vs.
State of Assam and Ors.
Decided On : 08.05.2006
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Municipal Board had the authority to levy parking fees under Section 148 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956, irrespective of the ownership of the land used as a parking place.
Headnote:
Parking Fees - Municipal Board's Power to Levy - Assam Municipal Act, 1956 - Section 68, Section 148
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, an association of bus owners, challenged the collection of parking fees by the Barpeta Road Municipal Board. The petitioners argued that the Board had no authority to collect parking fees and sought to get the impugned notice quashed.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the provisions of Section 68 and Section 148 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956. It held that the Municipal Board had the power to levy parking fees under Section 148, which was not controlled by Section 68. The court also emphasized that the power to levy parking fees was not dependent on the ownership of the land used as a parking place.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Municipal Board had the authority to collect parking fees and whether the collection of parking fees was without jurisdiction and void ab initio.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the relevant sections of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 and concluded that the Municipal Board had the power to levy parking fees under Section 148, irrespective of the ownership of the land used as a parking place. The court also emphasized that the levy of fees should be correlated to the expenses incurred by the Board in rendering the services.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no merit in the petitioners' arguments, and ordered the interim directions to stand vacated. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.
I.A. Ansari, J.
1. Both these writ petitions involve substantially the same parties, almost identical facts and these two writ petitions have been heard, on the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, together and are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment and order.
Case of the petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 1653/2003 and 4889/2004
2. The petitioner, namely, Bus Parichalana Samiti is an association of the bus owners of the various districts in Assam, including the district of Barpeta. The petitioner is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act. The members of the petitioner-Association ply their buses throughout the district of Barpeta and beyond and while so plying their buses, the members of the petitioner-Association are required to take their vehicles through the area of Barpeta Road Municipal Board. The members of the petitioner-Association have been plying their buses since the days of independence and much before Barpeta Town Committee was established, in the year 1961, under the provision of Assam Municipal Act, 1956. Barpeta Road Municipal Board (in short, 'the respondent-Board') replaced Barpeta Town Committee in the year 1976. The respondent-Board has started collection of parking fees from the buses of the members of the petitioner-Association on various rates and a notice inviting tender has already been issued by the respondent-Board, on 10.01.2003, for settlement of six parking gates for the financial year 2003-04 for collection of parking fees. Since the respondent-Board has no authority to collect parking fees, the issuance of notice inviting tender for collection of parking fees is without jurisdiction and the respondent-Board needs to be stopped from levying or collecting any parking fees or from appointing any lessee for collection of parking fees.
3. While issuing notice of motion, on 7.3.2003, in WP(C) No. 1653/2003, the court stayed, until further order, levy or collection of parking fees from the buses within the municipal area of Barpeta Road and the respondents were directed not to collect any parking fees without leave of the court. In course of time, as the petitioner did not pursue the writ petition, the writ petition was dismissed, on 26.3.2004, for default. This writ petition was, however, restored to file on 8.4.2004 and the interim order, dated 7.3.2003, was directed to continue.
4. Pending disposal of WP(C) No. 1653/2003, the petitioner-Association filed yet another writ petition, which came to be registered as WP(C) No. 4889/2004, the case of the writ petitioner, in WP(C) No. 4889/2004, being, in brief, thus : There is a bus terminus situated in Barpeta Road town area, located at PWD road. The members of the petitioner-Association have been using the said place as a parking place for the purpose of picking up passengers and also to enable the passengers to alight from the buses. For the maintenance of this bus terminus, the respondent-Board has not spent anything; rather, the said bus terminus has always been maintained by the PWD with the contributions made by the members of the petitioner-Association. By a notice, dated 25.5.2004, the respondent-Board has imposed varied sums of money as parking fees on buses, trucks, taxis, tractors, etc. The bus, truck and mini bus do not fall within the definition of the term 'carriage' as defined in Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956. This apart, the levy of parking fees on bus, truck and mini bus is not permissible, for, under Section 68(1)(g) of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956, the Municipal Board is empowered to collect licence fees from cart, carriage and animals other than motor vehicles as defined in the Assam Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1936. As the vehicles of the petitioner-Association fall within the ambit of the Assam Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1936, these vehicles are not amenable to the levy of parking fees by the respondent-Board. This apart, levy of such a parking fees need sancti
