HRI SHANKAR KAUSHIK Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD, ALIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these petitions the petitioners are challenging the right of the Respondent Municipal Board to realise tahbazari from the petitioner-operators allegedly on the ground that they are occupying and using public land vested in or entrusted in the management of the Respondent Board. Their contention is that the Respondent Board has not framed any bye-laws which may authorise it to levy and collect tahbazari for such use as on 25-8-1982. When the stay matter came up for hearing, the learned single Judge of this Court directed the learned Counsel for the Respondent Board to obtain necessary instructions particularly as to whether any bye-law has been framed to enable the Respondent Municipal Board to charge tahbazari. Despite this order the alleged bye-laws were not produced before the Court. Whereupon the learned single Judge of this Court passed an order making the interim order dated 8-4-1982 absolute. Under the interim orders the Respondent Municipal Board was restrained from realising any parking fee from the petitioners for plying their buses through the limits of the Respondent Board.

(2.) To-day again the learned Counsel for the Respondent Board has not been able to produce the alleged bye-law. Under the circumstances we are entitled to assume that there are no bye-laws authorising levy of impugned tahbazari. Sec. 293 of the U. P. Municipalities Act read with Sec. 298-E. clause (2)-II (b) authorises imposition of levy tahbazari. Sec. 293 provides as under:-

(3.) We accordingly dispose of these petitions with a direction that the Respondent Municipal Board shall not levy and realise from the operators of the petitioners tahbazari except under the express authority of bye-laws framed in that behalf or agreement reached for that purpose between the Board and the persons intending to use an immovable property such as public street or place. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.