# Janpad Auta Rickshaw Chalak Sangh, Azamgarh and another v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 555
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-07-10
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23210 of 2001
- **Bench:** M. Katju, R.S. Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/janpad-auta-rickshaw-chalak-sangh-azamgarh-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40179
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Municipalities Act-1916, Section
298-
power
to
frame
bye-lays-
emposition of licence fee of about Rs.
40/- per month on auto rickshaws-
enforced on basis of Govt. order dated
15.12.99-hence approval by State Govt.
not
needed-amount
imposed
not
arbitrary or exorbitant-

Held- paras 6 and 7

The State of U.P. had framed model byelaws and sent them for implementation.
In para 20 it is stated that the bye-laws
have been enforced on account of the
G.O. of the State Govt. dated 15.2.99,
and as such there is no need of approval
by the State Govt. In para 21 it is stated
that the publication has been made in
Rashtirya Sahara which is a daily news
paper having wide circulation all over
U.P. The allegation that local inhabitants
were not in a position to see the
advertisement was denied.

Annexure 3 to the petition indicates that
the fees for licence of Auto Rickshaw is
Rs.500/- per year which works out to
about Rs.40/- per month. Hence the
impugned
fee
is
not
in
anyway
exorbitant
or
arbitrary.
Similar
notification imposing licence fee on
vehicles,
nursing
homes,
insurance
companies, etc. has been upheld by us.
Case laws discussed:
2001(3) UPLBEC 2483
C.M.W.P.No. 14037 of 1999 decided on
19.5.03.

## Text

2 All] Janpad Auta Rickshaw Chalak Sangh and another V. State of U.P. and others
555
the Superintendent of Police of the district
has the power to transfer a constable from
Civil Police to the Armed Police only
under Regulation 525 of the Regulations
and the conditions of the said Regulation
have not been fulfilled in the present case
as all the petitioners are admittedly
working as constables for more than 15
years,
they
could
not
have
been
transferred from the Civil Police to the
Armed Police under the said Regulation.
The impugned order dated 28.1.2003 thus
deserves to be quashed.

6. The writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed and the order dated 28.1.2003 is
quashed in so far as it relates to the
petitioners. The respondents are restrained
from transferring the petitioners from
Civil Police to the Armed Police.
However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.07.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23210 of 2001

Janpad Auta Rickshaw Chalak Sangh,
Azamgarh and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri J.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Govind Krishna
S.C.

U.P. Municipalities Act-1916, Section
298-
power
to
frame
bye-lays-
emposition of licence fee of about Rs.
40/- per month on auto rickshaws-
enforced on basis of Govt. order dated
15.12.99-hence approval by State Govt.
not
needed-amount
imposed
not
arbitrary or exorbitant-

Held- paras 6 and 7

The State of U.P. had framed model byelaws and sent them for implementation.
In para 20 it is stated that the bye-laws
have been enforced on account of the
G.O. of the State Govt. dated 15.2.99,
and as such there is no need of approval
by the State Govt. In para 21 it is stated
that the publication has been made in
Rashtirya Sahara which is a daily news
paper having wide circulation all over
U.P. The allegation that local inhabitants
were not in a position to see the
advertisement was denied.

Annexure 3 to the petition indicates that
the fees for licence of Auto Rickshaw is
Rs.500/- per year which works out to
about Rs.40/- per month. Hence the
impugned
fee
is
not
in
anyway
exorbitant
or
arbitrary.
Similar
notification imposing licence fee on
vehicles,
nursing
homes,
insurance
companies, etc. has been upheld by us.
Case laws discussed:
2001(3) UPLBEC 2483
C.M.W.P.No. 14037 of 1999 decided on
19.5.03.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
for a writ of certiorari to quash the
impugned
bye-lays
dated
28.6.1999
Annexure 3 to the writ petition which
were published in U.P. Gazette dated
20.5.2000. The petitioners also prayed
that respondent nos. 4 and 5 be directed
not to realize licence fee from auto
Rickshaws and not to harass their
operators in this connection.

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
556

2. The petitioner no. 1 is a registered
union of Auto Rickshaw Operators
Society and petitioner no. 2 is the
Secretary of the Society. It is alleged in
para 3 of the petition that the Nagar Palika
Parishad, Azamgarh respondent no.4 has
been in the habit of imposing illegal taxes
on Auto Rickshaws and hence a Writ
petition No. 543 of 2000 had been filed in
this Court which was disposed of by
judgment dated 11.7.2000 Annexure 1 to
the petition. By that order petitioner was
directed to make a representation to the
Nagar Palika Parishad.

3. In para 4 of the petition it is stated
that on 30.4.2001 the Chairman, Nagar
Palika Parishad, Azamgarh notified the
rate of
annual licence fee
to be
implemented from 1.4.2001. True copy of
the notification dated 30.04.2001 is
Annexure 2. The rate schedule has been
fixed in accordance with the bye-lays
published in U.P. Gazette dated 20.3.2000
Annexure 3 to the petition.

4. A perusal of Annexure 3 shows
that the notification has been issued under
Section 298 of the U.P. Municipalities
act, 1916 which gives the power to the
Municipal Board to frame bye laws.
Section 298 (1) of the U.P. Municipalities
Act states :

"298. Power of board to make bye
laws (1) A board by special resolution
may, and where required by the State
Government
shall,
make
bye
laws
applicable to the whole or any part of the
municipality, consistent with this Act and
with any rule, for the purpose of
promoting or maintaining the health,
safety and convenience of the inhabitants
of
the
municipality
and
for
the
furtherance of municipal administration
under this Act.

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to
the generality of the power conferred by
sub
section
(1),
the
board
of
a
municipality, wherever situated, may in
the exercise of the said power, make any
bye law described in List 1 below, and the
board of a municipality, wholly, or in
part, situated in the hilly tract may further
make, in the exercise of the said power,
any bye law described in List II below.'"

5. It is alleged in paras 6,7 and 10 of
the petition that the licence fee can only
be realized if some service is rendered by
the Nagar Palika but it is alleged that the
Nagar Palika Parishad, Azamgarh does
not render any service to the Auto
Rickshaws operators. It is alleged in para
11 of the petition that the impugned bye
laws were published without complying
with the provisions of Section 44 (3) and
Section 132 of the U.P. Municipalities
Act. In para 12 of the petition it is stated
that without approval of the board and
earlier Chairman of the Nagar Palika sent
the impugned bye laws for publication in
the Gazette on 28.6.99. A true copy of the
letter of the Chairman dated 28.6.99 in
this connection is Annexure 4. It is
alleged that in the absence of any
approval by the Board, the impugned bye
laws could not have been given effect to.
In para 14 it is stated that the impugned
bye laws were framed without inviting
proper objections as per rules. However, a
news items were published in Rashtriya
Sahara in Lucknow but it is alleged that
the local inhabitants were not in a position
to see the news item and objections were
not filed. It is alleged in para 16 of the
petition that there is a lot of resentment in
the general public as well as in the owners
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] L.S. Sharma V. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I), Ghaziabad and others
557
of Auto Rickshaws. It is alleged that the
fee imposed is unreasonable.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of the Nagar Palika Parishad
and we have perused the same. In para 5 it
is stated that the petitioners had tried to
create confusion between Tempo and
Auto Rickshaw. It is stated that tempo
consists of 7 passengers whereas Auto
Rickshaw consists of 2 or 4 passengers as
indicated in the G.O. dated 29.9.92 issued
by the U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation vide Annexure CA-1. In para
7 of the counter affidavit it is stated that
the State Government imposed licence
fees on Auto Rickshaws after following
the legal procedure. In para 12 of the
counter affidavit it is denied that the
Nagar Palika Parishad is in the habit of
imposing illegal taxes on the Auto
Rickshaw. It is stated in para 14 that the
licence fee has been levied in accordance
with law in order to maintain the roads,
for providing light, sanitations and other
facilities. In para 19 it is stated that the
letter dated 28.6.99 indicates that the
same had been sent for publication to the
Govt. Press, Allahabad. The State of U.P.
had framed model bye-laws and sent them
for implementation. In para 20 it is stated
that the bye-laws have been enforced on
account of the G.O. of the State Govt.
dated 15.2.99, and as such there is no
need of approval by the State Govt. In
para 21 it is stated that the publication has
been made in Rashtirya Sahara which is a
daily news paper having wide circulation
all over U.P. The allegation that local
inhabitants were not in a position to see
the advertisement was denied.

7. We have also perused the
rejoinder affidavit.

Annexure 3 to the petition indicates
that the fees for licence of Auto Rickshaw
is Rs.500/- per year which works out to
about Rs.40/- per month. Hence the
impugned fee is not in anyway exorbitant
or arbitrary. Similar notification imposing
licence fee on vehicles, nursing homes,
insurance companies, etc. has been upheld
by us in Writ Petition No. 14037 of 1999
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus
Nagar Nigam, Allahabad decided on
19.5.2003. In this decision we followed
the decision of the Division Bench in
Chakresh Kumar Jain Versus State of
U.P. 2001 (3) UPLBEC 2483. As stated in
paras 14 & 17 of the counter affidavit,
several services are being provided by the
Nagar Palika in this connection, and
hence it cannot be said that there is no
quid pro quo.

8. As regards Section 132 of the
U.P. Municipalities Act the same has no
applicability because that relates to taxes
and not fees. Thus there is no force in this
petition. The writ petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 9.7.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 9693 Of 1997.

L.S. Sharma

...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding officer, Labour Court (I), U.P.,
Ghaziabad and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.C. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.R. Agrawal
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in