J RAMAMOORTHY Vs. CORPN OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can the Corporation of Madras levy charges for parking of vehicles in the parking lots, and that too, at the rates now prescribed by the Corporation for parking of four wheelers, three wheelers, and two wheelers? According to the petitioner, the Corporation cannot levy charges and even if it can, the charges prescribed are arbitrary and unreasonable, hence the petitioner has filed this petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus to make the Corporation of Madras (the first respondent herein) forbear from collecting parking fee in respect of his vehicles whenever they are parked in the parking lots set apart by the first respondent.

(2.) The petitioner's case, as contained in the affidavit sworn to by him, is to the following effect: The petitioner is a businessman and has his place of business in Godown St, Madras 1. In connection with his business, he is owning three cars. It has been his practice to go to his place of business every morning by car and then keep the vehicle parked in the traffic island behind the Flower Bazar Police Station from morning till evening. The parking of cars in that area does not cause any obstruction to the traffic passing along N. S. C. Bose Road. The Corporation had not been collecting hitherto any parking fee from owners of motor vehicles for the parking of their cars in parking lots. However, for the first time, the Corporation introduced a system of priced parking in the city from 16-7-1984. It has notified certain areas as parking lots and one of the areas so notified is the traffic island behind the Flower Bazar Police Station. As per the notification, there will be a levy of parking fee for parking of vehicles between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. on all days except Sundays, in the parking lots. A fee of Re. 1 per hour has been prescribed for four wheelers and three wheelers subject to a maximum of Rs. 10 per day and a fee of 50 paise per hour has been prescribed for two wheelers subject to a maximum of Rs.5 per day. In addition to the payment of parking fee, it is also incumbent upon the owner or driver of the vehicle to assess the period of parking of the vehicle and obtain a ticket from the parking attendant at the time of parking. Before the expiry of the exit time punched in the ticket the vehicle should be removed from the parking lot, failing which a penalty of Rs.2 per hour or part thereof has to be paid for four wheelers and three wheelers and a penalty of Re. 1 per hour or part thereof has to be paid for two wheelers, for the excess period. In spite of the collection of parking fee, the Corporation does not hold itself liable for any theft or damage caused to the vehicle during the time it is parked in the parking lot. It is the case of the petitioner that the levy of parking fee is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. No special benefit or privilege is conferred on the owners of vehicles in return for the collection of parking fee. There are no guidelines on the basis of which the fee has been fixed and, furthermore, there is no correlation between the fee collected and the services rendered. On account of these factors the petitioner would say that the levy of parking fee is illegal and hence the Corporation must be restrained by means of a writ of mandamus from collecting parking fee in respect of his vehicles.

(3.) On an examination of the matter, I find that the contentions of the petitioner are not sustainable either in law or on grounds of public policy. Under S.285(1) of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act (Tamil Nadu Act IV of 1919), the Commissioner of a Corporation can construct or provide public landing places, halting places, cart stands, cattle sheds and cow houses and may charge and levy such fees for the Use of the same as the Standing Committee may fix. The Explanation to the sub-section states that a cart stand shall, for the purposes of the Act, include a stand for carriages including motor vehicles within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and animals. It may therefore be seen that it is open to the Corporation to construct or provide halting places for parking of four wheelers, three wheelers and two wheelers and also levy such fees for the use of the same as the Standing Committee may fix. In fact, it is even open to the Commissioner, under sub-sec. (3) of S.285 to farm out the collection of such fees for any period not exceeding three years at a time, on such terms and conditions as he may think fit. The petitioner is not aggrieved with the setting apart of parking lots by the Corporation, but is only aggrieved about the collection of parking fee. According to him the parking of vehicles should be allowed free of charges as had been done hitherto and if that is not possible, the charges ought to be nominal and commensurate with the services rendered by the Corporation by way of quid pro quo for the collection of parking charges,