Back
2008 Supreme(MP) 59
2008(1) JLJ 341
Viney Mittal, J.
Pandit Ramprasad Purohit and others v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No.2463 of 2000 (Indore);
Decided on 15.1.2008.
G.M. Chaphekar with Amit Purohit for petitioners;
Umesh Gajankush, Government Advocate for State;
B.L. Pavecha with Shailendra Mukati for respondents No.2 & 3.
Headnote:Municipalities Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S.349 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S.117 -- M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 -- Rr.203 and 204 -- conjoint reading of provisions of both the Acts -- reveals no conflict -- parking place notified under Motor Vehicles Act and rules made thereunder -local authority has jurisdiction to impose fee for its user.
The petitioners maintain that since the bus stand Khujner was notified by the State Government and as per the provisions of rules 203 and 204, it was the responsibility of the District Magistrate for its maintenance, therefore, Nagar Panchayat Khujner had absolutely no jurisdiction or authority to impose a bus stand fee upon the bus operators such as the petitioners, for using the bus stand Khujner for purposes of taking up and setting down of passengers. [Para 3
Held : The conjoint reading of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as section 349 of the Municipalities Act, leads to an irresistible conclusion that there was no conflict within the provisions of two enactments. None of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act prohibit the imposition of any parking/user charges in the parking places so notified under the provisions of the Act/Rules. Thus, even if a parking/halting stand has been notified under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act still there is nothing in the said Act to restrain a local authority to charge a fee for user by a passenger vehicle for the purposes of its maintenance and providing facilities to the general public. As a matter of fact, rule 203 specifically enjoins a local body also, along with the District Magistrate, to maintain and manage such a parking place. Once a statutory duty has been put upon the local authority then in terms of the statutory authority conferred upon it under section 349 of the Municipalities Act, a local authority is fully justified and well within its rights to impose a fee for such parking/halting. AIR 1997 SC 2689 followed. (1997)11 SCC 640 and MP No.1540/1975 distinguished. [Para 9
uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 349 && eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 117 && e-iz- eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1994 && /kkjk 208 rFkk 204 && nksuksa vf/kfu;eksa ds mica/kksa ds la;qDr ikB ls && dksbZ fojks/k izdV ugha && eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e rFkk mlds v/khu cuk, x, fu;eksa ds v/khu vf/klwfpr ikfdZax LFky && LFkkuh; izkf/kdkjh dks mlds mi;ksx ij ‘kqYd vf/kjksfir djus dh vf/kdkfjrk gSA
;kphx.k dk nkok gS fd pw¡fd cl&vM~Mk [kqtusj jkT; ljdkj }kjk vf/klwfpr fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk fu;e 203 rFkk 204 ds mica/kkuqlkj] mldh ns[kjs[k dk mÙkjnkf;Ro ftyk eftLVªsV dk Fkk] blfy,] ;kf=;ksa dks ysus rFkk mrkjus ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, cl&vM~Mk [kqtusj dk mi;ksx djus ds fy, ;kphx.k tSls cl izpkydksa ij cl&vM~Mk ‘kqYd vf/kjksfir djus dh uxj iapk;r [kqtusj dks dksbZ Hkh vf/kdkfjrk ;k izkf/kdkj ugha FkkA ¼iSjk 3
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e ds lkFk&gh uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 349 ds mica/kksa dk la;qDr ikB bl vizfrjks/; fu"d"kZ rd ys tkrk gS fd nksuksa vf/kfu;fefr;ksa ds mica/kksa esa dksbZ fojks/k ugha gSA vf/kfu;e@fu;e ds mica/kksa ds v/khu ;Fkk vf/klwfpr ikfdZax LFkyksa esa ikfdZax@mi;ksx ds fy, dksbZ Hkh izHkkj dk vf/kjksi.k eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e ds fdlh Hkh mica/k }kjk izfrf"k) ugha gSA vr%] eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e ds fdlh Hkh mica/k ds v/khu ikfdZax@fojke vM~Mk vf/klwfpr fd;k x;k gS rc Hkh mldh ns[kjs[k rFkk tulk/kkj.k dks lqfo/kk nsus ds iz;kstu ds fy, ;k=h ;ku }kjk mi;ksx ds fy, ‘kqYd izHkkfjr djus ls LFkkuh; izkf/kdj.k dks jksdus ds fy, mDr vf/kfu;e esa dqN Hkh ugha gSA rF; dh n`f"V ls] fu;e 203 ftyk eftLVªsV ds lkFk LFkkuh; fudk; dks Hkh] ,sls ikfdZax LFky dh ns[kjs[k rFkk izca/k ds fy, fofufnZ"Vr%O;kfn‘V djrk gSA ,d ckj LFkkuh; izkf/kdkjh ij dkuwuh drZO; vkesfyr fd;k x;k gS rc] uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 349 ds v/khu mls iznÙk dkuwuh izkf/kdkj ds fuca/kukuqlkj] ,sls ikfdZax@fojke ds fy, ‘kqYd vf/kjksfir djus ds fy, LFkkuh; izkf/kdj.k iw.kZr% U;k;kuqer rFkk vius vf/kdkj esa gSA , vkb vkj 1997 ,l lh 2689 vuqlfjrA ¼1997½11 ,l lh lh 640 rFkk ,e ih Ø- 1540@1975 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 9
1. This order shall dispose of four writ petitions being WP No.1678/2000, 2049/2000, WP No.2050/2000 and WP No.2463/2000, as an identical and common controversy is involved in all these petitions. The writ petitioners in all these writ petitions have challenged the imposition of bus stand fee (Asthai Dakhal Shulk) on the motor vehicles using the bus stand set up by the respondent Nagar Panchayats. For the sake of convenience, the facts are borrowed from WP No.2463/2000.
2. The petitioners are the holders of Particular Stage Carriage Permit (PSTP) and on the strength of the aforesaid permit, they are plying the buses/passenger vehicles on various routes in the State of Madhya Pradesh, Respondent No.2, Nagar Panchayat Khujner, has set up a bus stand in the municipal area Khujner. During the course of plying the buses by the petitioners, they also use bus stand Khujner for taking up and setting down passengers at Khujner. A resolution dated February 9, 2000 has been passed by respondent No.2 Nagar Panchayat Khujner, imposing the bus stand fee on various passenger vehicles using the bus stand. A copy of the aforesaid resolution has been appended as Annexure P-2 and is subject-matter of challenge in the present petition.
3. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid imposition of bus stand fee and the resolution Annexure P-2 passed by the Nagar Panchayat Khujner, on the ground that under the provisions of section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the State Government or any other authority in this behalf authorized by the State Government, may in consultation with the local authority having jurisdiction in the area concerned, determine places at which the motor vehicle may stand either indefinitely or for a specified period for taking up and setting down of passengers. The petitioners have also relied upon rules 203 and 204 of Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, wherein according to the petitioners, maintenance and management of parking places has been made the responsibility of the District Magistrate of the area concerned. On the strength of the aforesaid provisions, the petitioners maintain that since the bus stand Khujner was notified by the State Government and as per the provisions of rules 203 and 204, it was the responsibility of the District Magistrate for its maintenance, therefore, Nagar Panchayat Khujner had absolutely no jurisdiction or authority to impose a bus stand fee upon the bus operators such as the petitioners, for using the bus stand Khujner for purposes of taking up and setting down of passengers. Additonally, on the basis of the resolution Annexure P-2, the petitioners have also maintained, that while passing the resolution Annexure P-2, Nagar Panchayat Khujner had in fact, under the garb of a bus stand fee, imposed an entry tax on passenger vehicles for entering the municipal area of Khujner. The petitioners have also raised a grievance that there was absolutely no jurisdiction with Nagar Panchayat Khujner or any other Nagar Panchayatl Municipality to impose an entry fee for entering the concerned municipal area.
4. The claim made by the petitioners has been contested by the respondents. Whereas the imposition of the bus stand fee has been justified, the learned counsel appearing for various Nagar Panchayats/Municipalities, during the course of arguments, have specifically stated that irrespective of the language, the resolution passed by the Municipal Council/Nagar Panchayat, none of the Nagar Panchayat/Municipalities had ever imposed any entry tax on the commercial/passenger vehicles and as a matter of fact, the said resolution was merely for imposition of a bus stand fee. All the learned counsel for the aforesaid local authorities have specifically undertaken that the respondent-local authorities were not charging any entry fee from any of the commercial/passenger vehicles.
5. In view of the specific stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondent Nagar Panchayat/Municipalities
