The court held that the Corporation cannot collect parking fees without designated parking areas, emphasizing the unreasonable burden on devotees given existing taxes.

JUDGMENT :

P. VELMURUGAN, J.

1. The respondent Temple filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.552 of 2010 seeking to quash G.O.Ms.No.76, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Corporation -2) Department, dated 25.05.2009, issued by the appellant Corporation, for the auction dated 21.01.2010 and to restrain the appellant Corporation from collecting fee for the vehicle entering into the Srirangam Temple. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides at length, allowed the writ petition, by order dated 10.04.2017. Challenging the same, the appellant Corporation has filed the present intra Court Appeal before this Court.

2. The case of the respondent Temple is that the Temple is the owner of the lands. The Government also granted a title deed bearing Doc. No.1027 to the Temple. The Temple is the owner of the property in respect of four streets of the temple. There is a space available in the Uthira Veethi and in and around walls in seven prakaram. However, without specifying a particular place or particular area for the purpose of parking vehicles, the Corporation is collecting parking fees, which is not legally sustainable. The Corporation does not have any power or authority to collect parking fees, without specifying the area for the purpose of parking the vehicles. The Corporation, by way of auction, has illegally permitted the persons to collect fee from the vehicles entering Srirangam Town. Due to the act of the Corporation, the devotees coming to the Temple are put to great hardship. Further, there are lot of complaints given by the devotees with respect to the collection of fees. There is no parking space available in and around the temple and the collection of fee without parking space makes complaint against the Temple. Therefore, the Temple filed a writ petition seeking to quash G.O.Ms.No.76, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Corporation -2) Department, dated 25.05.2009, for the auction dated 21.01.2010 with respect to Srirangam Division, Sl.No.2, Clause-B dated 31.12.2009 and to restrain the Corporation from collecting fee for the vehicle entering Srirangam Temple.

3. The case of the appellant Corporation is that the appellant Corporation is entitled to collect parking fee from the tourist buses/vans, which are parking in Mambalasalai Road, Ammamandapam Road, Renga Nagar Road, Ragavendrapuram Road, Gandhi Road, Melur Main Road, etc. Due to intervention of the respondent temple, the Corporation is unable to regulate the parking area. The appellant is an authority that has been entrusted with the statutory duty of maintaining the Trichy City, including Srirangam Town. The Temple, being the largest and only attraction for the visitors visiting Srirangam, cannot say that the Corporation should provide the services and at the same time, seek to restrict the public revenue. The respondent Temple has not provided any parking ground in the places stated in the writ petition. Moreover, the respondent has to obtain permission from the appellant Corporation for providing parking stand which has not even been applied for till date. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order of Notification in respect to Srirangam Division, Sl.No.2, Clause-B, dated 31.12.2009. Challenging the same, the appellant Corporation has filed the present appeal.

5. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the learned single Judge has erred in law by allowing the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, without analyzing the relief sought for in the writ petition, has passed an order by quashing the auction notice dated 31.12.2009 and restraining the Municipal Corporation from entering, collecting any vehicle fees on the tourist buses/vans in the South Uthira Veethi, Srirangam Temple at Tiruchirappalli District at any point of time. The learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the notification was issued