MUNICIPAL BOARD, HAPUR ETC. versus JASSA SINGH AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 547 · Decided: 04-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MUNICIPAL BOARD, HAPUR ETC. 
v. 
JASSA SINGH AND ORS. ETC. 
SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] 
Municipalities : 
Hapur Municipal Act : 
A 
B 
Sections 293, 294, 298-Bus stands set up by the Municipality-Stage C 
caniages using them-Fee of 50 paise per day increased to 75 paise per day 
on the basis of Resolution-Transport operators challenging the power of the 
Municipality-High Court striking down the demand of fee holding it to be 
ultra vires the power of the Municipality-On appeal held, it is the duty of the 
user to pay fee for service rendered by the Municipality, as part of its statutory D 
duty-Constitution of India-Art. 243. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 472 of 
1980 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.11.79 of the Allahabad High E 
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 13 of 1978. 
S. Markandaya and Ms. Chitra Markandaya for the Appellants. 
V.J. Francis for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
F 
In CA. No. 472180 
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 G 
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 Re. 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 H 
547 
548 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A upon Jagdish Prasad Bind/av. Municipal Board Atroli & Anr. in CMWP No 
3976 of 1973 decided on July 18, 1979 had allowed the appeal and quashed 
the demand without any further consideration. The question is : whether 
B 
c 
· the municipality has the power to levy fee and demand the payment thereof 
for use of the bus stand? 
The Government in their order dated June 13, 1959 had directed the 
appeJlant 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 Govern-
ment Order so that no liconvenience is experienced by the people 
for parking motor vehicles." 
,...-
D 
.. 
·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 stand 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 pay at the rate of 
E 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 
F 
G 
Resolution, Item No. 3 levy of fee has been imposed for parking 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 
H place' of which it allows the use or occupation whether by allowing a 
MUNICIPAL BO. v. JASSASINGH 
549 
· projection thereon or otherwise. Such fee may either be levied along with A 
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 th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.