The court established that there was no implied repeal of S.286 and S.287 of the Travancore District Municipalities Act by S.72 of the Travancore-Cochin Motor Vehicles Act, allowing the two sets of provisions to co-exist.

1. The Municipal Council, Palai, the appellant before us, passed a resolution on September 12,1958 providing for the use from October, 1, 1958 of a public bus stand constructed by it for stage carriage buses starting from and returning to the Municipal limits of Palai or passing through its limits. A fee of Re.1 per day was to be charged on every such bus and 50 nP per day on buses which merely pass through the municipal limits. The resolution also prohibited the use after that date of any other public place or the sides of any public street within Palai Municipal limits as a bus stand or a halting place. At the request of the bus operators the Municipal Council, by a resolution dated September 24,1958 reduced the rates from Re.1 to 80 nP per day and from 50 nP to 40 nP per day. By a further resolution dated November 22,1959 the Municipal Council modified the resolution of September 12,1958 and instead imposed a prohibition on using as a bus stand or halting place a public place or side of a public road within a radius of six furlongs from the Municipal bus stand. Some of the operators who were using that bus stand did not pay the charges due from them for the use of the bus stand. Demand notices were, therefore, issued against them. The respondent in this appeal, Joseph, as well as the respondents in the other two appeals, Anthony and Eapen, who were recipients of such notices preferred writ petitions before the High Court of Kerala challenging the validity of the action taken by the Municipal Council and praying for quashing of the demand notices issued against them.

2. It may be mentioned that the various resolutions of the Municipal Council to which we have adverted were passed by it in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by S.286 and 287 of the Travancore District Municipalities Act, XXIII of 1116 M. E. (which corresponds to A. D. 1941). Those provisions read thus:

"286. (1) The municipal council may construct or provide public landing places, halting places and cart-stands and may levy fees for the use of the same.

(2) A statement in English and a language of the district of the fees fixed by the Council for the use of such place shall be put up in a conspicuous part thereof.

Explanation: A cart-stand shall, for the purposes of this Act include a stand for carriages and animals.

287. Where a municipal council has provided a public landing place, halting place or cart-stand, the executive authority may prohibit the use for the same purpose by any person within such distance thereof, as may be determined by the municipal council, of any public place or the sides of any public street."

The reason given by the Municipal Council for taking action under these provisions is that about 80 stage carriage buses start, halt in, or pass through the municipal limits of Palai and the members of the public using them were being put to serious inconvenience for want of a proper waiting room and other necessary conveniences. Further, the unsystematic manner in which the buses were parked and plied affected the sanitation of the town. In order to improve matters the Municipal Council claims to have utilised a plot of land worth Rs. 50,000/- located almost at the centre of the town and constructed a bus stand at a cost of Rs. 80,000/- wherein, among other things, it has provided separate waiting rooms for men and women, sitting accommodation, electric fans, sanitary conveniences, drinking water etc., as also garages and booking offices free of cost for bus operators using the bus stand. It is claimed on behalf of the Municipal Council that by establishing the bus stand it has not only acted within the scope of the powers conferred by the Act but also in public interest and for preserving the health and sanitation of the town.

3. On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the provisions of S.286 and 287 of the Travancore District Municipalities Act stood repealed by implication by virtue of the provisions of S.72 of the Tr