P JANARDHANA REDDY Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these two Writ Petitions ask for a declaration that the Press Release No. 7 issued by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabxd on 28th June 1985 proposing to levy parking fee is illegal and void. It will be convenient to dispose of these two Writ Petitions by a common judgment. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') issued a Press Release No. 7 on 28th June 1985 informing the public that it would be collecling parking fee from the owners of cars. Scooters, three wheelers and cycles which are parked on the main roads of the Twin Cities. It was mentioned that in the first instance the collection would be made in Abid Road from 1st July 1985 in respect of all vehicles which are parked between 10 A. M. and 9 P. M. In respect of Cars parked the Corporation proposed to charge Re. 1/- for the first hour and for each additional hour a rupee subject to a maximum of Rs. 10/-. In respect of three wheelers and scooters the charge is HO paise for the first hour and 50 paise for each subsequent hour subject to a maximum of Rs. 3/-. For cycles the charge is 10 paise for the first hour and 10 paise for each additional hcur there after subject to a maximum of Re. I/-. The Corporation proposed to appoint Exservicemen to work as 'Park Wardens' who were authorised to issue receipts in token of collection. The Press Release proceeds to state that the introduction of Pay & Park system along the roads is not only to regulate the traffic on the main thoroughfares but also to make available the parking space to the actual needy persons. The parking fee received was proposed to be utilised for the improvement of traffic, foot-paths, carriage ways and development of parking lots. The petitioners challenge the validity of the levy by the Corporation of the parking fee, basically on two grounds. It is firstly urged that the levy of the parking fee is unauthorised and no power is conferred on the Corporation under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (the Act, for short) or by the Bye laws framed thereunder. It is secondly, urged that no services are rendered at all by the Corporation for the charge of the above fee and there being no quid pro quo at all the levy of the fee is illegal. The respondent Corporation states that it has the power to levy the parking fee and the fee is charged for services rendered to the owners of the vehicles in particular and the public in general. The Corporation, therefore, claims that the levy is perfectly valid.

(2.) I have heard Sri H.S. Gururaja Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri K. Janardhana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, and Sri N.V. Suryanarayana Murthy, learned Govt. Pleader for Respondent. 1.

(3.) On the question of the Corporation being empowered to levy the parking fee, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation draws attention to Secs. 112 and 115 of the Act. It is pointed out that Sec. 112 of the Act specified matters which the Corporation is under an obligation to provide, while Sec. 115 of the Act specified matters which the Corporation may provide even though there Is no obligation to so provide. Reference is invited to the residuary clause (39) of Sec. 115 of the Act which states that the Corporation may take any measure not specifically named in any of the Sub Clauses upto and including clause (38), likely to promote public safety, health, convenience or instruction. It is said that the corporation proposed to regulate the traffic on the main thoroughfares which promotes public safety, and convenience. It is, therefore, urged that the Corporation is empowered in its discretion to take measures for regulating the traffic and to collect a fee for such purpose. Learned Standing counsel then refers to Sec. 586 of the Act which confers power on the Corporation to make Bye-laws for purposes of the Act. Reliancce is placed on Sec. 586 (5) and (48) which are in the following terms: