Kerala High Court
Lalu Mathew vs The Ranni - Pazhavangadi Grama ... on 2 August, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 7231 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
AJAYAN S PANICKER
AGED 50 YEARS
VARAPPUZHA HOUSE, PULLUPRAM PO, RANNI,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689674
BY ADVS.
ANANDHU SATHEESH
V.G.SURESH
SREEDEVI S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE RANNI-PAZHAVANGADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH
RANNI-PAZHAVANGADI PO, PATHANAMTHITTA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 689673
2 THE SECRETARY
RANNI-PAZHAVANGADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, RANNI-
PAZHAVANGADI PO, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689763
3 MATHEWS CHERIAN, AGED 59 YEARS
S/O P.M. CHERIAN, PARAKULATH HOUSE, KARIKULAM PO,
RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689673
SRI.M.T.SURESH KUMAR, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON29.7.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).13735/2023, THE COURT ON
02.08.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
WP(C)No.13735/2023 & 7231/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 13735 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 LALU MATHEW, AGED 47 YEARS
S/O MATHEW ABRAHAM, PAZHOOR HOUSE,
NELLIKKALA P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 643,
GENERAL SECRETARY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION,
PARAYIL BUILDING, NEAR RT OFFICE,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645
2 MATHEWS CHERIAN, AGED 58 YEARS
S/O P.M.CHERIAN, PARAKULATH HOUSE,
KARIKULAM P.O., RANNI-683 562,
GENERAL SECRETARY,
THE PUBLIC BUS OPERATOR'S
UNITY,REG.NO.KTM/TC143/2020,
463 P VZ BUILDING,
OPPOSITE KARUKACHAL BUS STAND, CHANGANASSERY,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686101
3 RATNAMMA A.V., AGED 78 YEARS
W/O VISWANATHAN PILLAI (LATE), EDATHIL HOUSE,
KADAPRA P.O., KUMBANAD,
THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689547
4 ANILKUMAR A.V.,AGED 47 YEARS
S/O VISWANATHAN, ASWATHY BHAVAN,
PUTTOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689106
BY SRI. SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE RANNI - PAZHAVANGADI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
RANNI-PAZHAVANGADI P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
-3-
WP(C)No.13735/2023 & 7231/2024
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 689673
2 THE SECRETARY,
RANNI PAZHAVANGADI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
RANNI-PAZHAVANGADI P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689673
3 AJAYAN S.PANICKAR,
VARAPPUZHA HOUSE, PULLUPRAM P.O.,
RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689674
BY ADVS.
Suresh Kumar M.T.
SREEDEVI S.
MANJUSHA K(K/000191/2018)
SREELAKSHMI SABU(K/000200/2020)
V.G.SURESH(K/438/1991)
ANANDHU SATHEESH(K/613/2020)
JOHN JOSEPH(K/892/2020)
SRI.M.T.SURESH KUMAR, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 29.07.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).7231/2024, THE COURT ON
02.08.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
WP(C)No.13735/2023 & 7231/2024
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
-----------------------------------------------
WP(C) No.13735 of 2023 and 7231 of 2024
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2024
JUDGMENT
WP(C)No.13735/2023 is filed by four stage carriage
operators, who are also the office bearers of the District Private
Bus Operators Association. They challenge the increase in the
parking fee collected from the stage carriages for entering the
Ittiyappara Bus stand, under the auction conducted for the years
2023-2024. It is stated that respondents 1 and 2 had issued a
notification for collecting the stand fee from the Ittiyappara Bus
stand for a period from 1.4.2023 to 21.3.2024 as per Ext.P2
auction notice and the third respondent was the successful
bidder. The third respondent started demanding Rs.40/- from
the bus operators.
WP(C)No.13735/2023 & 7231/2024
2. The petitioners contend that as per the Kerala
Panchayat Raj (Landing Places, Halting Places, Cart Stands and
other Vehicle Stands) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as
'Vehicle Stands Rules'), the Grama Panchayat is to construct and
maintain the bus stands. The maximum fee they can be levied
under Rules 9 from the the said Rules is only Rs.10/- if there are
facilities and if no facilities as provided, only Rs.6/- can be
charged. They also alleged that there are no facilities provided in
the bus stand and therefore the collection of Rs.40/- is contrary
to the Rules.
3. WP(C)No. 7231/2024 is filed by the third respondent
contractor against one of the petitioners in WP(C)No. 13735/2023
contending that he had not paid the parking fees, and therefore
prays for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to command them to
enforce the payment of the outstanding parking fees from the
third respondent as per the terms in Ext.P1 contract.
4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the Panchayat
contending that the levy of fees is permissible going by the
WP(C)No.13735/2023 & 7231/2024
Vehicles Stands Rules and that the contention that no amount
above Rs.10/- can be collected is wrong. It is submitted that the
bus stand is maintained by the Panchayat as provided under Rule
344 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and that the upper
limit of Rs.10/- contemplated by Rule 9 is not applicable as the
Panchayat themselves had provided the facility. They also rely
on Rules 8 and 20 to substantiate their power to levy fees
through the public auction, more than what is permissible under
Rule 9 of the said Rules. They also submit that fees have been
lowered to Rs.20/- from Rs.40/- as per a decision taken by the
Panchayat Committee. As the levy is in accordance with Rules
they prayed for dismissal of WP(C)No.13735/2023.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in
WP(C)No.13735/2023 Sri Sajeev Kumar Gopal argues that the only
Rule that deals with the rate of fees in the Vehicle Stands Rules is
Rule 9, which prescribes the maximum fee for a period not
exceeding 24 hours if no amenities are provided and also if the
amenities are provided. The learned counsel submits that there
is no other Rule which deals with the rate of fees.
WP(C)No.13735/2023 & 7231/2024
6. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the
Panchayat Sri. M.T.Suresh Kumar argues that under Rule 8 which
deals with the publication of notice regarding providing a
landing place and halting place and cart stand, if the Village
Panchayat is providing the location of its opening and the rate of
fee to be paid for its use, the same takes in a right to fix the fee,
if they are providing the landing place. He also relies on Rules 19
and 20 and contends that Rule 19 deals with the leasing of
portions of halting places which confers the right on the
Panchayat to provide for a lease for providing the halting places
and landing places etc. Rule 20 enables them to transfer the right
to collect the fee by public auction. Thus it is the submission
that the rate of fee is applicable only when the halting place is
leased out and there is no restriction placed in Rule 20 regarding
the rate of fee.
7. After considering the rival submissions, I am of the firm
view that only the Rule which provides for the rate of fee is Rule
9 irrespective of whether the Panchayat is providing parking
places of its own or leasing out the land. Rule 20 only deals with
WP(C)No.13735/2023 & 7231/2024
the right of the Panchayat to farm out the right to collect the fee
fixed under Rule 9. In the absence of any power given under
Rules to fix the fee dehors the fee fixed under Rule 9, I am not
inclined to accept the contention on behalf of the Panchayat.
True, as rightly argued by the learned standing counsel for the
Panchayat, the Panchayat has to incur expenses for maintaining
the bus stand and therefore Rs.10/- will be grossly inadequate.
However, the same is a matter to be tackled elsewhere and not
before this Court which is bound by the prescription of fee under
the Rules.
8. Given the above findings, WP(C)No.13735/2023 is
allowed and there will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to
ensure that the stand fee from the petitioners is collected only as
per the rate specified under Rule 9 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj
(Landing Places, Halting Places, Cart Stands and other Vehicle
Stands) Rules, 1995. There will be a further direction to the third
respondent not to collect any amount above Rs.10/- because of
the above declaration. WP(C)No.13735/2023 is allowed as above.
WP(C)No.13735/2023 & 7231/2024
9. As far as WP(C)No.7231/2024, it is filed by the
contractor alleging that the second petitioner in
WP(C)No.13735/2023, who is also the third respondent in
WP(C)No.7231/2024 has not paid the parking fees as stipulated
by the Panchayat, and therefore seeks a direction to enforce the
respondents at the rate fixed in Ext.P1 contract. In view of my
findings in WP(C)No.13735/2023, no relief can be granted in
WP(C)No.7231/2024. That apart, the prayer is to make the third
respondent, a private person pay the amounts to the petitioner,
which cannot be sought for in a writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. For these two reasons I find no merit in
WP(C)No.7231/2024, and the same is accordingly rejected.
WP(C)No.13735/2023 is allowed and WP(C)No.7231/2024 is
dismissed
Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
dlk/31.7.2024
WP(C)No.13735/2023 & 7231/2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13735/2023
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
GRAMA PANCHAYAT REGARDING STAND FEE
COLLECTED DATED 30 - 03 - 2023.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE
PUBLISHED BY THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED
23-03-2023
WP(C)No.13735/2023 & 7231/2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7231/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT DATED
03/04/2023 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 25/05/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 16/02/2024 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT OF
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
