TEMPO WAHAN UNION, KASGANJ, SOR, DISTRICT ETAH AND OTHERS Vs. PRESIDENT, NAGAR PALIKA, KASGANJ DISTRICT ETAH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners' case is that the members union ply their vehicles on the road constructed by the Public Works Department. It is further alleged that they were not using any parking place on land vested in or entrusted to the management of the respondent Nagar Palika, Kasganj, Consequently they were not liable to pay the impugned tax sought to be realised by the respondent Nagar Palika as Tahbazari.

(2.) In Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Municipal Board, however, it is asserted that the petitioners park their vehicles on the road side Parti on both sides of the road opposite Road- ways Bus stand, which is under control and management of the respondent Municipal Board. It is stated that the Municipal Board has constructed the stand for the facility of the vehicles. The petitioners park their vehicles at the municipal stands and do the business of loading and unloading of goods etc. The allegation further is that the assertions of the petitioners that they are merely passing and re-passing through the P.W.D. road passing through Kasganj without stopping at Municipal stand is wrong and baseless.

(3.) We have no reason to doubt the assertions made in the counter affidavit. On those assertions no relief can be granted to the petitioner in view of the settled position of the law on the subject. Under Sec. 293 of the U.P. Municipalities Act read with Sec. 298 (e) (d) of the U. P. Municipalities Act, the respondent Municipal Board is legally authorised to make provision to levy fee for use and occupation of any public street or land vested in the Municipal Board by itinerant vendors or by any person for sale of articles or for setting up of any both or still. The stand taken by the Municipal Board is that these transporters the members of the petitioners union are actually using the stand constructed by the Municipal Board for loading and unloading goods, that is for doing business. It is, however, equally well settled that the Municipal Board cannot levy fee on the petitioners merely on the passing and re-passing of the vehicle, with those observations the petition is dismissed. The interim orders are discharged.