http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: MUNICIPAL BOARD, HAPUR ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: JASSA SINGH & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       04/09/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. FAIZAN UDDIN (J)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R IN C.A. NO. 472/80      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment of the  Division Bench  of the  Allahabad High Court made on November 8,  1979 in CMWP NO.13/78. The admitted position is that all  the respondents  are transport operators using for their stage carriages the bus stand set up by the appellant- Board in Hapur. When the appellant-Board demanded payment of the fee  at the  rate of  Rs. 0.75  per day, though they had been paying  fee earlier  at the  rate of  Rs. 0.50 per day, they contended  that the  municipality was  devoid of power. The High Court in the impugned judgment relying upon Jagdish Prasad Bindla  vs. Municipal  Board Atroli  & Anr.  CMWP No. 3976 of 1973 decided on July 18, 1979 had allowed the appeal and quashed  the demand  without the  municipality  has  the power to  levy fee demand the payment thereof for use of the bus stand ?      The Government  in their order dated June  13, 1959 had directed the  appellant  and  all  other  municipalities  as under:      "I am therefore to request that you      may kindly advise all the municipal      bodies in  your districts  to  take      steps   to   establish   bus-stands      within their  municipal  limits  in      accordance  with   the   Government      Orders so that no inconvenience for      parking motor vehicles."      The same  direction was  reiterated  in  their  further letter  dated   August  23,   1960   impressing   upon   the municipality   to  establish  the  bus  stand  urgently  and report the  action taken  in  that  behalf.  In  furtherance thereof, the  municipalities had  set  up  bus  stand  at  a considerable expenditure  and fee  was levied for the use of the bus at varied rates by the owners of the motor vehicles. As regards  the  rates  payable  in  respect  of  the  stage carriages, it  was resolved  that each stage carriage should

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

pay at  the rate  of Re  0.75 per  day. The resolution dated February 25,  1961, Item No. 1 of the bye-laws says that all motor vehicles  which run  on fare  shall be  parked only at places specified by Nagar Palika and not at any other place. Item No. 4 envisages that no private stand shall be made for any parking  of any motor vehicle within the limits of Nagar Palika. In Schedule A to the said Resolution, Item No.3 levy of fee  has been  imposed for  parking vehicles. viz, public private bus  carrying vehicles,  viz, public and private bus carrying passenger at the rate of Re.0.75 per day or part of the day.  It would,  thus, be  seen  that  pursuant  to  the directions issued  by the  Government, the  bus stands  have been set  up for the convenience of the travelling public at a great  expenditure and  for use  of the parking places the fee has been prescribed.      The question  is :  whether the  municipality has  such power to  levy the  fee? Section 293 of the Act empowers the Board to  charge fee  to be  fixed by  bye-laws or by public auction  or  by  agreement,  for  the  use    of  occupation (otherwise than  under a  lease) of  any immovable  property vested in,  or entrusted  to the  management  of  the  Board including any public street or place of  which it allows the use or  occupation whether  by allowing a projection thereon or otherwise.  Such fee  may either be levied along with the fee charged under Section 294. Section 298 provides thus :      "A Board  by special resolution may      and where  required  by  the  State      Government  shall,   make  bye-laws      applicable to the whole or any part      of   the  municipality,  consistent      with this  Act and  with any  rule,      for  the   purpose   promoting   or      maintaining the  health safety  and      convenience of  the inhabitants  of      the  municipality   and   for   the      furtherance      of       municipal      administration under this Act."      Sub-section (2)  thereof, provides  that in particular, and  without  prejudice  to  the  generality  of  the  power conferred by  sub-section (1),  the Board of a municipality, wherever situated,  may, in  the exercise of the said power, make any  bye-law described  in list  I and   the Board of a municipality wholly,  or in  part situated  in a hilly tract may further  make, in  the exercise  of the  said power, any bye-law described in list II below.      Clause (b)  thereof  provides  for  the  regulation  or prohibition   of any  description of  traffic in the streets where such regulation or prohibition appears to the Board to be necessary.  It would,  thus, be  seen that  the Board has been empowered  statutorily to  prescribe the fee for use of the  public   property  vesting   in  or  belonging  to  the municipality. Even under the recent amendment brought by the Constitution [73rd  Amendment] Act,  1992  which  came  into force w.e.f.  April  20,  1993,  it  imposes  the  statutory responsibilities on  the  municipalities. Article 243 - p(d) defines "municipal  area" to  mean the territorial area of a Municipality  as   is  notified  by  the  Governor.  Article 243(a)(i) envisages  that subject  to the  provisions of the Constitution, the  Legislature of a State may, by law, endow the municipalities  powers and authority as may be necessary to  enable   them  to  function  as  institutions  of  self- government and  such law  may  contain  provisions  for  the devolution   of    powers    and    responsibilities    upon municipalities, subject to such conditions, as may specified therein, with  respect  to  the  preparation  of  plans  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

economic development  and social  justice .Entry  17 of  the 12th Schedule provides for public amenities including street lighting, parking  lots,  bus stops and public conveniences. Thus, the  Constitution enjoins  the appropriate Legislature to provide  for preparation  of  the  plans    for  economic development and  social justice  including power  to provide public amenities  including street  lighting, parking  lots, bus stops  and public conveniences. On such public amenities including  bus   stops   having   been   provided   by   the municipalities, as  a is  statutory duty,  it is the duty of the user  thereof to  pay fee  for service  rendered by  the municipality. The  municipality had  prescribed the  minimum fee to  the user  at the  rate of  Re. 0.75  per day or part thereof, for  use of  any transport  vehicle,  as  mentioned hereinbefore. The High Court is clearly in error in striking down the  demand of fee power holding that it is ultra vires their power.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed, the  order of  the Division Bench  of the  High Court  is set aside but, in the circumstances, without costs. IN C.A. NO. 12299/96 (@ SLP (C) NO. 4006/80)      Leave granted.      The  appeal  is    allowed  in  terms  of  the    above observations made in C.A. NO. 472 of 1980.