SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the citation dated 1.12.2009 issued by the Tehsildar, Mawana and the order dated 1.10.2009 passed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Mawana (Meerut), and the recovery proceedings in pursuance thereof. The petitioner is the highest bidder in an auction for collection of the entry fees/parking fees, from vehicles entering the municipal limits of Nagar Palika Parishad, Meerut. The bid of the petitioner was accepted by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Mawana, Meerut by order dated 1.4.2008 and where-under he was required to deposit 25% of the bid amount on or before 8.4.2008. The petitioner claims to have deposited a total sum of Rs. 10,90,940/- in three installments, i.e., on 26.3.2008, 14.5.2008 and 30.5.2008. The petitioner further contends that although he had deposited the requisite sum and the papers for execution of formal contract but no written contract was executed. He claims to have collected entry fees/parking fees during the months April, May, June and July, 2008, but thereafter he could not collect the entry fees/ parking fees in view of the fact that number of writ petitions, being writ petition Nos. 1084 of 2008, 1315 of 2008 and 1391 of 2008 were filed before this Court challenging the action of Nagar Palika Parishad, Mawana in realising the parking fees/entry fees and in which interim orders were passed, as a result whereof, the petitioner could not realise the entry fees/parking fees. The petitioner further claims that ultimately these writ petitions were allowed by judgment dated 27.5.2009 and 15.7.2009 and judgment in writ petition No. 1391 of 2008 dated 15.7.2009 has been filed as Annexure 8 to the writ petition. In the said judgment, a Division Bench of this Court held that the Municipal Board has no power to impose tax on vehicles merely for passing through its limit/roads. It was further held that the Municipality cannot compel the persons plying the vehicles for hire to park the same on specified place and to charge a fee in lieu thereof, unless such facility is used by the bus operators voluntarily.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that in view of the interim order and subsequent final judgment in the aforesaid writ petition, he could not collect parking fees/entry fees for the remaining period. He further claims that for the period during which he could operate the contract, his liability comes to Rs. 7,55,333.33 p. while he has deposited a total sum of Rs. 10,90,940.00 and which is much more than the amount to which he could be held liable. The petitioner further contends that inspite of these facts, the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad issued a notice dated 17.10.2008 calling upon the petitioner to deposit the remaining amount under the contract and thereafter forwarded a recovery certificate for realisation of the said amount as arrears of land revenue and on the basis whereof, the impugned citation to appear dated 1.12.2009 has been issued.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the recovery proceedings for realisation of the remaining amount of contract money as arrears of land revenue is wholly without jurisdiction as the Nagar Palika Parishad is not vested with any such power under the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 or under any other law for the time being in force.