SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(Raj) 442

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
D.L.Mehta, J.
Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others - Respondent
S.B.C.W.P. No. 542 of 1983.
Decided On : 9-08-1983

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:M.D. Purohit, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2:J.M. Bhandari, Advocate.

Municipalities cannot levy toll or tax on motor vehicles but can charge fees for halting or parking places on a contractual basis.

Headnote:

MUNICIPALITY - TAXATION - MOTOR VEHICLES - TOLL OR TAX - MUNICIPALITY CANNOT LEVY TOLL OR TAX ON MOTOR VEHICLES - CAN CHARGE FEES FOR USE OF PARKING OR HALTNG PLACES - MUNICIPALITY NOT BOUND TO PROVIDE HALTNG OR PARKING PLACES - IF MUNICIPALITY PROVIDES SUCH FACILITIES, IT CAN CHARGE FEES ON CONTRACTUAL BASIS.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, challenged the municipality's imposition of a fee on its buses for using the municipal land as a bus stand. The municipality argued that it had the authority to charge fees for the use of its personal property for halting or parking purposes.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the municipality could not levy toll or tax on motor vehicles as it was prohibited under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951. However, the municipality could charge fees for halting or parking places if its personal property was used for the same.

Issues: 1. Whether the municipality could levy toll or tax on motor vehicles? 2. Whether the municipality could charge fees for halting or parking places?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 21 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 prohibits municipalities from levying toll or tax on motor vehicles. 2. The municipality can charge fees for halting or parking places if its personal property is used for the same.

Final Decision: The court partly allowed the petition and set aside the municipality's order imposing a fee on buses for using the municipal land as a bus stand. The court held that the municipality could not levy toll or tax on motor vehicles but could charge fees for halting or parking places on a contractual basis.

JUDGMENT

1. - Mr. M. D. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to (1) Lakshman v. State of M. P. (A.I.R. 1983 SC 656), and has submitted that there is violation of Articles 14, 19 and 301 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), no tax or toll can be levied by the Municipality.Section 21 of the Act runs as follows :

"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law for the time being in force in any part of Rajasthan, it shall not be lawful for any local authority to levy any tax or toll in respect of any motor vehicle."

2. Petitioner No. 1 is Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. It plies buses on the inter-state routes of the Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, the bus stand is declared by the R. T. A. after hearing the parties interested. It is an admitted position that as far as the town of Nimbaheda is concerned, no bus stand has been declared so far under the erosion's of M. V. A. The property vesting in the municipality is used for the purpose of bus stand as well as for the purpose of other allied matters. There cannot be two opinion that the municipality cannot realise toll or tax as defined in Section 21 of the Act. In (2) Raghuvar Dayal v. M B. Bari (I. L. R. (1960) 10 Rajasthan 895), the Adda fee and the provisions relating to the trip tax came up for consideration before the Division Bench. The Adda fee was prescribed by bye-laws and every motor vehicle entering within the limits of the Municipality was required to pay the Adda fees. In was observed by the Division Bench as follows :

"We can only understand this bye-law to mean that the fee has to be paid by every motor vehicle entering the limits of the municipality."

3. The question before me is whether it is a function of the municipality to provide halting or parking places for motor vehicles entering its limits, for, so far as I am advised by the learned counsel for the parties, I think that this is a function which ordinarily rests with the transport authorities under Motor Vehicles Act 1939. Section 75 of the Act read with Rule 134 of the Motor Vehicles Rules are clear on this point. It is also an admitted position that the trip tax falls within the purview of the toll. The municipality is not competent to impose any toll or tax in violation of the provisions of Section 21 of the Act but at the same time, the municipality can charge the fee for halting or parking places for motor vehicles, if its personal property is used for the same. It is not the function of the Municipality to provide the halting piece and to provide the amenities necessary for the same. The buses going from one State to another, halts for whole of the night and may be for hours together and this is the primary function of the transport authorities if any to provide the halting or parking places. If the municipality provides halting places which is not its function and which the petitioner cannot claim as of right from the municipality then the Municipality is entitled to ask the petitioner to make the payment by way of fees for halting purposes. The trip has no relevancy whatsoever with the charges or fees realised on account of the use or occupation of parking or halting places. The vehicle may enter within the municipal limits and pass through the roads and the lift to the passengers. The municipality cannot put any restriction on the free movement and cannot charge any tax or toll an account of the use of the roads but at the same time, the municipality cannot be asked to remain silent and to allow the petitioner to use its personal property for halting or parking purposes. If the petitioner wants parking or halting place, it may have its own garage where it can keep its vehicle for the purpose of safe custody. If the personal property of the municipality













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top