Ravindra Kumar and Others vs Zila Parishad,Kanpur Dahat

R. A. Sharma, J.—By means of this writ petition the petitioners, who are transport operators have challenged the byelaws framed by the Zila Parishad Kanpur Dehat levying parking fee for use of stand fixed by it on 23121993 the Zila Parishad which was represented through a counsel in this court was granted two weeks time to file counter affidavit. But no counteraffidavit was filed. On 1711994 one week''s further time was granted to the respondent to file counteraffidavit, but no counteraffidavit has been filed till now. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kumar learned counsel for the respondent.

Learned counsel for petitioner has made two submissions in support of the writ petition viz. (1) the Zila Parishad has no jurisdiction to fix parking/ halting place, and (2) the petitioners do not use the parking/halting places fixed by the Zila Parishad and as such the respondent cannot force them to pay the fee.

As regards the first contention of learned counsel petition for the petitioner, it stands concluded by a decision of Full Bench of this Court in Dashrath Yadav v. Zila Parishad, 1984 UPLBEC 49 (FB), wherein this Court has held that Zila Parishad has the power to frame byelaws to the effect that no motor cars, lorries, carts, Ekkas and other vehicles plying for hire shall be allowed to halt for the purposes of pickingup and setting down passengers at any place other than the stand by it. The first contention of the learned counsel for petitioner as such has to be rejected.

In Paragraph 9,11 and 14 of the writ petition it has been stated that the petitioners do not touch the places fixed by the Zila Parishad as halting/parking places and do not pass through those places at all. As mentioned earlier, in spite of time having granted more than once, On counteraffidavit has been filed by Zila Parishad with the result that averments made in the writ petition have to be accepted as correct.

Zila Parishad can charge fee for use of halting/parking places only when vehicles stand/halt over there. But when halting/parking places fixed by Zila Parishad are not used by the petitioners it has no jurisdiction to compel them to pay parking/halting fee. The operators cannot also be compelled by placing barriers on the need to pay parking fee, if they do not want to park/halt their vehicles at those stands.

This writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondent is directed not to realise parking fee from the petitioners provided they do not halt their vehicles at parking/halting place, fixed by the Zila Parishad. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.