Allahabad High Court
Sri Vineet Kaushik And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 8 August, 2014
Bench: Tarun Agarwala, Satish Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
RESERVED.
Civil Misc Writ Petition (Tax) No. 368 of 2010
Sri Vineet Kaushik and others
Vs.
State of U.P. and others
***
Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.
Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra, J.
(Per: Tarun Agarwala,J.)
The petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the Nagar Palika Parishad, Garhmuteshwar, its agents and contractors not to realise any parking fee from the petitioners.
The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the petitioners are owners of a bus and have a permit for plying their buses on the route, Meerut-Parikshitgarh-Asifabad-Laliyana extended from Asifabad to Garhmuteshwar via Nadllipur-Dhikaini. The petitioners contend that they have to pass through the town area Garhmuteshwar where the petitioners have their own private bus stand on the land owned by the Gurudwara Committee. The petitioners further contend that the Nagar Palika Parishad Garhmuteshwar has no bus stand in the town area of Garhmukteshwar nor any amenities such as drinking water, bathrooms, etc. are being provided and, consequently, they have no authority in law to charge a parking fee from the petitioners who park their vehicles on the private land of the Gurudwara. The petitioners contend that they are not parking their vehicles on the land of the Town Area, Garhmukteshwar and that they parked their buses on the roadside pavement for picking up and dropping the passengers, which road is maintained by the P.W.D. and which is not vested with the Town Area of Garhmukteshwar.
In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision in Loni Border Shamli Mini Bus Operators Association Baraut, Baghpat vs. State of U.P. and others, in Writ Petition No.689 of 2004, decided on 12.8.2008, in which a mandamus was issued directing the respondents not to charge parking fee from those persons unless their vehicles are parked voluntarily on the parking place maintained by the respondents.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Bhopal vs. Sindhi Sahiti Multipurpose Transport Co-operative Society Limited, AIR 1973 SC 2420, wherein the Supreme Court held that the Municipal Council has no power to compel persons plying motor buses for hire to use only Municipal bus stand for the purpose of taking up and setting down the passengers.
There is no quarrel with the aforesaid proposition laid down in the aforesaid decisions, but a writ of mandamus cannot be issued on that basis. We find from a perusal of the counter affidavit that the Nagar Palika Parishad, Garhmukhteswar has provided a bus stand for picking and dropping passengers at Syana bus stand and has provided all facilities of drinking water, urinals, etc., as per the Government Order dated 12.1.2009. The respondents have further contended that the petitioners are not parking their vehicles at the designated bus stand created by the respondents, but are parking their vehicles outside the Gurudwara on the land which is owned and maintained by the Nagar Palika Parishad. The respondents submitted that the petitioners are parking their vehicles outside the Gurudwara in order to avoid payment of parking fee.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we find that no doubt the respondents cannot force the petitioners to park their vehicles at the designated parking place, but only on that score a writ of mandamus cannot be issued as we find that the petitioners are parking at other places on the land owned by the Nagar Palika Parishad and are avoiding payment of parking fee. Since the petitioners have not come up to the Court with clean hands, no mandamus can be issued. The decisions cited by the petitioners are in relation to such situation where a municipal council was not providing a parking stand and, in that scenario, the Court held, that the parking fee can not be charged, if the Municipal Council was not providing a parking stand.
In the instant case we find that a parking stand has been provided, but, the petitioners are deliberately not using it and are parking their vehicles elsewhere in order to avoid payment of parking fee. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioners have admitted that they are parking their vehicles on the roadside to drop and pick up passengers. This admission clearly indicates that the petitioners are illegally stopping at points, which are not designated for parking. By stopping at places other than the notified bus stand and parking the bus on the land belonging to the Municipal Board, the authorities would be justified in charging the petitioner.
In the light of the aforesaid, since we find that the petitioners are violating the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and are stopping their vehicles on the roadside for picking and dropping the passengers and are not parking their vehicles at the designated bus stand, the petitioners are not entitled for any writ of mandamus.
The writ petition fails and is dismissed
Dated:8.8.2014.
AKJ.
(Dr. Satish Chandra, J.) (Tarun Agarwala, J.)
