BUS PARICHALANA SAMITY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions involve substantially the same parties, almost identical facts and these two writ petitions Have been heard, on the request of the learned counsel for the parties, together and are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment and order. Case of the petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 1653/2003 and 4889/2004

(2.) The petitioner, namely, Bus Parichalana Samiti is an association of the bus owners of the various districts, in Assam, including the district of Barpeta. The petitioner is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act. The members of the petitioner Association ply their buses throughout the district of Barpeta and beyond and while so plying their buses, the members of the petitioner Association are required to take their vehicles through the area of Barpeta Road Municipal Board. The members of the petitioner association have been plying their buses since the days of independence and much betbre Barpeta Town Committee was established, in the year 1961, under the provision of Assam Municipal Act, 1956. Barpeta Road Municipal Board (in short, 'the respondent Board') replaced Barpeta Town Committee in the year 1976. The respondent Board has started collection of parking fees from the buses of the members of the petitioner Association on various rates and a notice inviting tender has already been issued by the respondent Board, on 10.01.2003, for settlement of six parking gates for the financial year 2003-2004 for collection of parking fees. Since the respondent Board has no authority to collect parking fees, the issuance of notice inviting tender for collection of parking fees is without jurisdiction and the respondent Board needs to be stopped from levying or collecting any parking fees or from appointing any lessee for collection of parking fees.

(3.) While issuing notice of motion, on 07.03.2003, in WP(C) No. 1653/2003, the Court stayed, until further order, levy or collection of parking fees from the buses within the municipal area of Barpeta Road and the respondents were directed not to collect any parking fees without leave of the Court. In course of time, as the petitioner did not pursue the writ petition, the writ petition was dismissed, on 26.03.2004, for default. This writ petition was, however, restored to file on 08.04.2004 and the interim order, dated 07.03.2003, was directed to continue.