JAYANTA KALITA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who, being a permit-holder of stage carriage, plies buses on different routes passing through the districts of Sibsagar, Dibrugarh and Tinsukia, has challenged the legality of the order, dated 29. 5. 2004, whereby respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Naharkatia Town Committee, represented by its Chairman i. e. , respondent No. 3, has granted settlement of a public bus stand for the year 2004-2005 in favour of respondent No. 4.

(2.) PUT in nutshell, the case of the petitioner runs as follows : while plying his buses on the routes permitted in terms of the permits for stage carriage issued to him, the petitioner stops his buses en route, at Naharkatia Town, for dropping passengers and also to pick up passengers for taking them to Duliajan, Moran and some other places. The Naharkatia Town Committee (in short, 'the respondent Town committee' has started realizing parking fees from the vehicles including the vehicles of the petitioner, when the petitioner's vehicles stop, at Naharkatia Town, to pick up passengers or to drop passengers. The place, where the vehicles so stop, is a strip of land, located by the side of the highway, the said strip of the land measuring about 40 feet in length and 15 feet in breadth. There is no structure or any other facilities like water, sitting accommodation for passengers, waiting room, ticket-counter and/or lights for convenience of the passengers. Thus, the respondent Town Committee has not provided any infrastructure on the said land to call it a bus stand. Without, however, providing any infrastructure or facilities, as indicated hereinabefore, the respondent Town Committee has, vide impugned order, dated 29. 5. 2004, appointed respondent No. 4 as a lessee for the year 2004-2005 of the said parking area and, on being so appointed, the lessee has started collecting parking fees. The land, in question, where the buses so stop, does not belong to the respondent Town Committee, but to the Public Works Department, Government of Assam. Thus, when the land, in question, does not belong to the respondent Town Committee and when the respondent Town Committee has not provided any infrastructural facilities, as pointed out hereinabefore, the respondent Town Committee is not entitled to collect any parking fees. This apart, parking fees cannot be collected by any Town Committee without obtaining requisite sanction from the State Government in terms of Clause (n) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 68 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956.

(3.) THE respondent Town Committee has resisted the writ petition by contending, inter alia, that though the land, in question, is a Government land, the respondent Town Committee is in permissive occupation thereof. The land, in question, does not form part of the highway and that it is a plot of land, located by the side of the road, where parking of buses is allowed and it is on account of the fact that parking facility for the buses has been provided by the respondent Town Committee, at the said place, that the respondent Town Committee has imposed parking fees. As the buses stop there not only for the passengers to alight, but also for the passengers to board in, the respondent Town Committee is entitled to collect parking fees within the ambit of the powers vested in it under Section 148 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956. Following a proper tender process, respondent Town Committee has appointed respondent No. 4 as the lessee for the said parking place, because the respondent No. 4 was found to be the highest bidder.