MAHESH KUMAR SINGHAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS have filed this writ appeal under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dated 10.7.2007 passed by Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 157/2004.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the appellants are the bus operators. They are registered owners of the vehicles and are residents of Kurwai, district Vidisha. They have challenged the bye -laws framed by the Nagar Panchayat Kurwai (Annexure P -1) dated 27.12.2003 which came into force w.e.f. 1.2.2004. Bye -laws have been framed exercising powers under subsection (3) of section 357 as well as exercising the powers under sections 349(2),357(5) and 358(4), sub -clauses (b) and (d) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (in short the "Act of 1961 "), by which they have imposed parking fees on the owners of the vehicles, i.e., motor, truck, buses and matador, which are parked at the bus stand, at the rate of Rs.20/ - per day (Rs.600/ - per month) and they prayed that resolution number 157 dated 27.12.2003 (Annexure P -2), by which bye -laws are adopted and notification issued (Annexure P -3), be quashed. In the petition, notice was issued to the respondents and return was filed by them. In the return the respondents have justified their action. After hearing the arguments learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding therein, that in view of various provisions as contained under section 358(4)(a) and (b), section 357(3) and section 349(ii) of the Act of 1961. Nagar Panchayat has power to frame such bye -laws as contained in bye -laws No.4, 6, 7 and 8 and dismissed the writ petition, against which the appellants have filed this writ appeal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants further submitted that though the learned Single Judge has considered the provisions of section 349 which deals about the grant of imposition of licences and permissions, sections 282, 357(5) and 358(4)(a) and (b), section 117 of the Act of 1988 as well as provisions of rule 204 of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 and has also considered the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Council Bhopal (supra), but dismissed the writ petition. It was further argued that the learned Single Judge has not considered the ratio laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case cited above.