MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BHOPAL versus SINDHI SAHITI MULTIPURPOSE TRANSPORT CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 274 · Decided: 24-07-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.G. PALEKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

274 
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BHOPAL 
v 
SINDHI SAHJTI MULTIPURPOSE TRANSPORT 
CO-OP. SOCIETY LID. & ANR. 
July 24, 1973 
(D. G. PALEKAR AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.J 
Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961-Bye-laws made under provisions 
of s. 358(7) (/) and (m) read withs. 349(;;) 'Of Act-Bye-law 2 providing for 
motor-buses plying for hire to be compulsorily parked at Municipal bus stand-
Bye-laws 3 to.? providing for fee payable for parking-Bye-law 2 does not fall 
under s. 349(11) or s. 358(1) (/) or (m) of Act and is inva/id-Conseque111/y 
bye-laws 3 to 7 providing for levy of fee also invalid. 
Motor Vehicles Act 4 of 1939 s. 68(2)-Power to specify place of Bus-stand 
under section rests with Stare Government and not with Dist. Magistrate-Cannot 
be delegated to District Magistrate. 
A 
B 
c 
The Municipal Cotincil of Bhopal made bye-laws under the provisions of 
•· 358(7) (f) and (m) read with section 349(ii) of the 
Madhya 
Pradesh 
Municipalities Act, 1961. 
Bye-law 2 provided that no person incharge of a 
motor-bus plying for hire shall for the purpose of taking up or setting down 
D 
of passengers, park or stop his bus anywhere within the li.ilits of the municipality 
except at the municipal Bus Stand. The other bye-laws prOvided for a levy 
of a fee of Re. l /- for every 8 hours or part thereof in respect o( the use of 
the bus stand by such buses and for the issue of a permit on such payment. 
The respondent fjled a writ in the High Court of Ma<;Jhya Pradesh challenging 
the.said bye-laws .. The High Court held that bye-law I (c). which defined the 
expression 'Municipal Bus Stand' and bye-law 2 were valid but held bye-Jaws 
3 to 7. which provided for the payment of fee and the giving of Permit !tc., 
E 
as invalid and restrained the Municipal Council from giving effect 
to 
those 
bye-laws in any manner. 
Dismissing the appeal by certificate filed by the Municipal Council. 
HELD: (i) Section 349(ii) was not applicable to the case. 
The section itself 
does not _enable the Municipal Council to require that permis~ion should be 
obtained for any purpose. It deals with levy of fees for permissions which 
are required to be taken for various purposes under other sections of the Act 
F 
such as sections 187(3), 194 and 223(4). The relevant words in the section 
deal with permissions granted to indivi-!llals to temporarily occupy municipal 
land. 
It would be doing violence to that section to hold that it deals with 
the provision of a bus-stand. In the context of that sectioll it was difficult to 
hold that when people were compelled to use the bus stand constructed b-y 
the. Municipal Council- it was a permission for temporary occupation of land 
belonging to the Council. [276F] 
· 
(ii) It was not possible to relate the provision of clause (f) of sub-section 7 
G 
of section 358 as having anything to do 
with the 
provision of a bus-stand. 
As regards clause (m) of sub-section 7, "the regulating and prohibiting the 
stationing of carts . . . . . on any ground under the control of the Council or 
the using of such ground as halting place of vehicles cannot be said to relate 
to the provision Of Municipal bus stand. The power to regulate or prohibit 
the use of Mu;iicipal land as halting place of vehicles cannot be used to compel 
people use such land as halting places. Such a power must be specifically 
given. 
The power to compel persons in charge of motor buses to stop only 
H 
at certain places for. the purpose of taking up or setting down of passengers 
Is a matter whicl) relates to motor traffic and there is a specific provision in 
oection 68(2) (4) and (s) of the Motor Vehicles Act for this specific purpose. 
[277H] 
A 
B 
c 
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL v. SJNDH! TRANSPORT SOCIETY LTD. 
275 
(A/agiriswami, /.) 
T. B. Ibrahim v. S.T.C. Tcm;ore, [19531 
S.C.R. 
290 
and 
Mu11icipnl 
Board, Pushkar v. State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, (1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
373, referred to. 
(iii) The bye-laws compel persons in charge of motor buses to use the 
Municipal bus stand, which the Municipality had no t?OWer to do. 
Consequently 
it must be held that bye-law 2 is not valid and with it must go the other 
bye-laws. 
(iv) Further, in the present case the District Magistrate had 
admittedly 
declared the Bhopal MuniciJ!al Bus Stand as bus stand. 
Power to specify the 
p1ace under section 68(2) (r) and (s) vests in the State Government. 
It has 
not been shown that the State Government had any power to delegate their 
po\\'Cr u
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.