# MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BHOPAL v. SINDHI SAHJTI MULTIPURPOSE TRANSPORT CO-OP. SOCIETY LID. & ANR

- **Citation:** [1974] 1 S.C.R. 274
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973-07-24
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1547 of 1967
- **Bench:** D. G. Palekar, A. Alagiriswami
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/municipal-council-bhopal-v-sindhi-sahjti-multipurpose-transport-co-op-society-5967
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961-Bye-laws made under provisions
of s. 358(7) (/) and (m) read withs. 349(;;) 'Of Act-Bye-law 2 providing for
motor-buses plying for hire to be compulsorily parked at Municipal bus standBye-laws 3 to.? providing for fee payable for parking-Bye-law 2 does not fall
under s. 349(11) or s. 358(1) (/) or (m) of Act and is inva/id-Conseque111/y
bye-laws 3 to 7 providing for levy of fee also invalid.
Motor Vehicles Act 4 of 1939 s. 68(2)-Power to specify place of Bus-stand
under section rests with Stare Government and not with Dist. Magistrate-Cannot
be delegated to District Magistrate.
A
B
c
The Municipal Cotincil of Bhopal made bye-laws under the provisions of
•· 358(7) (f) and (m) read with section 349(ii) of the
Madhya
Pradesh
Municipalities Act, 1961.
Bye-law 2 provided that no person incharge of a
motor-bus plying for hire shall for the purpose of taking up or setting down
D
of passengers, park or stop his bus anywhere within the li.ilits of the municipality
except at the municipal Bus Stand. The other bye-laws prOvided for a levy
of a fee of Re. l /- for every 8 hours or part thereof in respect o( the use of
the bus stand by such buses and for the issue of a permit on such payment.
The respondent fjled a writ in the High Court of Ma<;Jhya Pradesh challenging
the.said bye-laws .. The High Court held that bye-law I (c). which defined the
expression 'Municipal Bus Stand' and bye-law 2 were valid but held bye-Jaws
3 to 7. which provided for the payment of fee and the giving of Permit !tc.,
E
as invalid and restrained the Municipal Council from giving effect
to
those
bye-laws in any manner.
Dismissing the appeal by certificate filed by the Municipal Council.
HELD: (i) Section 349(ii) was not applicable to the case.
The section itself
does not _enable the Municipal Council to require that permis~ion should be
obtained for any purpose. It deals with levy of fees for permissions which
are required to be taken for various purposes under other sections of the Act
F
such as sections 187(3), 194 and 223(4). The relevant words in the section
deal with permissions granted to indivi-!llals to temporarily occupy municipal
land.
It would be doing violence to that section to hold that it deals with
the provision of a bus-stand. In the context of that sectioll it was difficult to
hold that when people were compelled to use the bus stand constructed b-y
the. Municipal Council- it was a permission for temporary occupation of land
belonging to the Council. [276F]
·
(ii) It was not possible to relate the provision of clause (f) of sub-section 7
G
of section 358 as having anything to do
with the
provision of a bus-stand.
As regards clause (m) of sub-section 7, "the regulating and prohibiting the
stationing of carts . . . . . on any ground under the control of the Council or
the using of such ground as halting place of vehicles cannot be said to relate
to the provision Of Municipal bus stand. The power to regulate or prohibit
the use of Mu;iicipal land as halting place of vehicles cannot be used to compel
people use such land as halting places. Such a power must be specifically
given.
The power to compel persons in charge of motor buses to stop only
H
at certain places for. the purpose of taking up or setting down of passengers
Is a matter whicl) relates to motor traffic and there is a specific provision in
oection 68(2) (4) and (s) of the Motor Vehicles Act for this specific purpose.
[277H]
A
B
c
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL v. SJNDH! TRANSPORT SOCIETY LTD.
275
(A/agiriswami, /.)
T. B. Ibrahim v. S.T.C. Tcm;ore, [19531
S.C.R.
290
and
Mu11icipnl
Board, Pushkar v. State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, (1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
373, referred to.
(iii) The bye-laws compel persons in charge of motor buses to use the
Municipal bus stand, which the Municipality had no t?OWer to do.
Consequently
it must be held that bye-law 2 is not valid and with it must go the other
bye-laws.
(iv) Further, in the present case the District Magistrate

## Text

274
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BHOPAL
v
SINDHI SAHJTI MULTIPURPOSE TRANSPORT
CO-OP. SOCIETY LID. & ANR.
July 24, 1973
(D. G. PALEKAR AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.J
Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961-Bye-laws made under provisions
of s. 358(7) (/) and (m) read withs. 349(;;) 'Of Act-Bye-law 2 providing for
motor-buses plying for hire to be compulsorily parked at Municipal bus standBye-laws 3 to.? providing for fee payable for parking-Bye-law 2 does not fall
under s. 349(11) or s. 358(1) (/) or (m) of Act and is inva/id-Conseque111/y
bye-laws 3 to 7 providing for levy of fee also invalid.
Motor Vehicles Act 4 of 1939 s. 68(2)-Power to specify place of Bus-stand
under section rests with Stare Government and not with Dist. Magistrate-Cannot
be delegated to District Magistrate.
A
B
c
The Municipal Cotincil of Bhopal made bye-laws under the provisions of
•· 358(7) (f) and (m) read with section 349(ii) of the
Madhya
Pradesh
Municipalities Act, 1961.
Bye-law 2 provided that no person incharge of a
motor-bus plying for hire shall for the purpose of taking up or setting down
D
of passengers, park or stop his bus anywhere within the li.ilits of the municipality
except at the municipal Bus Stand. The other bye-laws prOvided for a levy
of a fee of Re. l /- for every 8 hours or part thereof in respect o( the use of
the bus stand by such buses and for the issue of a permit on such payment.
The respondent fjled a writ in the High Court of Ma<;Jhya Pradesh challenging
the.said bye-laws .. The High Court held that bye-law I (c). which defined the
expression 'Municipal Bus Stand' and bye-law 2 were valid but held bye-Jaws
3 to 7. which provided for the payment of fee and the giving of Permit !tc.,
E
as invalid and restrained the Municipal Council from giving effect
to
those
bye-laws in any manner.
Dismissing the appeal by certificate filed by the Municipal Council.
HELD: (i) Section 349(ii) was not applicable to the case.
The section itself
does not _enable the Municipal Council to require that permis~ion should be
obtained for any purpose. It deals with levy of fees for permissions which
are required to be taken for various purposes under other sections of the Act
F
such as sections 187(3), 194 and 223(4). The relevant words in the section
deal with permissions granted to indivi-!llals to temporarily occupy municipal
land.
It would be doing violence to that section to hold that it deals with
the provision of a bus-stand. In the context of that sectioll it was difficult to
hold that when people were compelled to use the bus stand constructed b-y
the. Municipal Council- it was a permission for temporary occupation of land
belonging to the Council. [276F]
·
(ii) It was not possible to relate the provision of clause (f) of sub-section 7
G
of section 358 as having anything to do
with the
provision of a bus-stand.
As regards clause (m) of sub-section 7, "the regulating and prohibiting the
stationing of carts . . . . . on any ground under the control of the Council or
the using of such ground as halting place of vehicles cannot be said to relate
to the provision Of Municipal bus stand. The power to regulate or prohibit
the use of Mu;iicipal land as halting place of vehicles cannot be used to compel
people use such land as halting places. Such a power must be specifically
given.
The power to compel persons in charge of motor buses to stop only
H
at certain places for. the purpose of taking up or setting down of passengers
Is a matter whicl) relates to motor traffic and there is a specific provision in
oection 68(2) (4) and (s) of the Motor Vehicles Act for this specific purpose.
[277H]
A
B
c
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL v. SJNDH! TRANSPORT SOCIETY LTD.
275
(A/agiriswami, /.)
T. B. Ibrahim v. S.T.C. Tcm;ore, [19531
S.C.R.
290
and
Mu11icipnl
Board, Pushkar v. State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, (1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
373, referred to.
(iii) The bye-laws compel persons in charge of motor buses to use the
Municipal bus stand, which the Municipality had no t?OWer to do.
Consequently
it must be held that bye-law 2 is not valid and with it must go the other
bye-laws.
(iv) Further, in the present case the District Magistrate had
admittedly
declared the Bhopal MuniciJ!al Bus Stand as bus stand.
Power to specify the
p1ace under section 68(2) (r) and (s) vests in the State Government.
It has
not been shown that the State Government had any power to delegate their
po\\'Cr under this section to the District Magistrate.
It has also not shown
that the District Magistrate issued any notification specifying the- Bhopal BusStand as one under the provisions of section 68(2) (r) and (s) of the Motor
Vehicles :\ct.
If at all the District Magistrate had
taken any actiOn it could
onlx ~ under s. 76.
But that section does not enable him to specify places
for setting down or picking up of passengers.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1547 of 1967.
Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated October
18, 1966 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at J abalpur in Misc.
o
Petition Nu. 557 of 1960.
E
F
G
H
M. C. Chagla, Rameshwar Nath and Seeta Vaidialingam, for the
appellant.
M. N. Phadke and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for resp0ndent No. 1.
I. N. Shroff and R. P. Kapur, for respondent No. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ALAGIRISWAMI, J.-On 6-11-1964 the Municipal Council of Bhopal made bye-laws under the provisions of s. 356(7) (f) & (x)
read
withs. 349(iij of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 after
previous publication in the M. P. Rajpatra as required under s. 357 ( 4)
and confirmation by the State Government under s. 357(3) in respect
of a l\1unicipal bus stand.
Bye-law 2 of the bye-laws provided that no
per3oa incharge of a motor-bus plying for hire shall for the purpose of
taki~g up ~r setting down of passen~~s, ~ark or stop his bus an~here
w1thm the lmuts of the Bhopal Mumc1pahty except at the Mumcipal
Bus Stand.
The other bye-laws provided for a levy of a fee of Re. I/-
for every eight hours or part thereof in respect of the use of the bus
stand by such ~uses and for the issue of a permit on such payment.
On 13-11 .. 1964 the respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh challenging the said bye-laws.
The High Court
held that bye-law 1 ( c), which defined the expression 'Municipal Bus
Stand' and bye-law 2, which has been set out earlier, were valid, but
held bye-laws 3 to 7, which provided for the payment of fee and the
giving of a permit etc., as invalid, and restrained the Municipal Council from giving effect tq those bye-laws in any manner.
The Muni-.
cipal Council was also directed to refund the fee collected from the
respondents.
This appeal has been filed by the Municipal Council
by certificate granted by the High Court.
276
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
. [ 1974 I 1 S.C.R.
Section 349 (ii) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act reads :
A
'The Council may charge such fee as may be prescribed
by bye-la"s for-
(i) ........................... .
(ii) any permission granted under this Act for
making
any temporary erection or for putting up any projec-
(iii)
tion or for the temporary occupation of any public
street or any land or building belonging to the Council; and
Section 358 in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of this case reads:
"In addition to any power specially conferred by this
Act, the Council may, and if so required by the State Government shall, make bye-laws for-
(1) ........................... .
(7) Public, Health, Safety, Nuisance and Sanitation-
(f) prohibiting or regulating with a view to sanitation or the prevention of disease, any act which
occasions or which is likely to occasion a public
nuisance and for the prohibition or regulation
of which no provision is made under this heading;
(n) regulating and prohibiting the statbning of carts
or picketing of animals on any ground under
the control of the Council or the using of such
ground as halting place of vehicles or animals
or as a place for encampment or the causing or
permitting of any animal to stray.
It appears to us that s. 349 (ii) does not apply to this case.
The relevant portion of that section reads :
"The Council may charge such fee as may be prescribed . . . . . . . . for any permission granted under this Act
. . . . . . for the temporary occupation of . . . . . . . . any land
...... belonging to the Council."
The section itself does not enable the Municipal Council to. require
that permission should be obtained for any purpose. It deals with
levy of fees for permissions which are required to be taken for various
purposes under _ot.her sections of the _Act. . Section
187(3) . w.hich
deals with perm1ss10n to erect, alter, aud to or reconstruct bmldmgs,
and section 194 which deals with permission to the owners or occupiers of bnildings in public street to pnt up verandahs, balconies or
rooms, to project from any upper storey thereof are instances in point.
The permission mentioned in section 194 is one of the matters for
which fees can be prescribed under section 349(ii). Section 223 ( 4)
deals with allowing any temporary occupation or erection in any public
street on occasions of festivals and ceremonies, or allowing the occupation <'f, or temporary erection of structures for any other purpose.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL V, SINDHI TRANSPORT SQC!ETY LTD.
277
(A /agiriswami, J.)
Fees can be prescribed under section 349(ii) in respect of these matters.
The words above mentioned in tha( section deal with permission
granted to individuals to temporarily occupy municipal land. It would
be doing violence to that section to hold that it deals. with the provision of a bus-stand. In the context of that section it is difficult to hold
that when people are compelled to use a bus stand constructed by the
Municipal Council it is a permission for temporary occupation of land
belonging to the Council.
Let us now consider if under the provisions of section 358, already
extracted, the Municipal Council can validly make the present byelaws.
It is not possible to relate the provision of clause (f) of subsection (7) as having anything to do with the provision of a bus stand.
As regards clause (m) of sub-section (7) "the regulating and prohibiting the stationing of carts . . . . . . on any ground under the control
of the Council or the using of such ground as halting place of vehicles"
cannot be said to relate to the provision of a Municipal bus stand. The
power to regulate or prohibit the use of municipal land as halting place
of vehicles cannot be used to compel people use such land as halting.
places.
Such a power must be specifically given.
Compare this section with sections 270-B and 270-C of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920, which read as follows :
"270-B. (1) The municipal council may construct or
provide and maintain public landing places, halting places
and cart stands and may levy fees for the use of the same.
(1-A) .......................... ..
(2) A statement in English and a vernacular language
of the district of the fees fixed by the council for the use of
such place shall be put up in a conspicuous part thereof.
Explandtion : A cart stand shall be for the purposes of
this Act includes a stand for carriages including motor vehicles within the meaning of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act,
1914 and animals."
"270-C. Where a municipa( council has provided a public landing place, halting place or cart-stand, the executive
authority may prohibit the use for the same purpose by any
person. within such distance thereof, as may be determined
by the municipal council, of any public place or the sides of
any public street."
.
Even these sections deal with use of landing places, halting places and
cart-stands but do not deal with places for setting down or taking up
of passengers. It is well to keep clear in one's mind the distinction
be~ween halting places which would be the equivalents· of garages of
pnvate persons and places where passengers may be set down and
taken up which can properly be called bus stands.
The power to compel persons incharge of motor buses to stop only at certain places for
the purpose of taking up or setting down of passengers is a matter
whiah relates to motor traffic and there is a specific provision in sec·
278
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974 J 1 s.c.R.
tion 68(2)\r) & (s) of the Motor Vehicles Act for this specific purA
pose. They read as· follows :
"68. (2) Without prejudice to the generality
of
the
foregoing power, rules under this section may be made with
respect to all or any of the following matters, namely :-·
(r) prohibiting the picking up or setting down of passengers by stage or contract carriages at specified places
or in specified areas or at places other than duly notified stands or halting places and requiring the driver
of a stage carriage to stop and remain stationary for
a reasonable time when so required by a passenger
desiring to board or alight from the vehicle at a notified halting place;
( s) the req"irements which shall be- complied with in the
construction or use of any duly notified stands or halting place, including the provi.sion of adequate equipment and facilities for the convenience of all users
thereof, the fees, if any, which may be charged for
the use of such facilities, the records which shall be
maintained at such stands or places, the staff to be
employed thereat, and the duties and conduct of such
staff, and generally for maintaining such stands and
places in a serviceable and clean condition."
This Court in T. B. Ibrahim v. R.T.C., Tanjore( 1) held that the
expression 'duly notified stand' in the Motor Vehicles Act means 'a
stand duly notified by the Transport Authority'. It was contended
before this Court that section 68(2) (r) of the Motor Vehicles Act did
not confer the power upon the transport authority to direct the fixing
or the alteration of a bus-stand.
This Court rejected that contention.
It pointed out that the section gives power to the Government to prohibit a specified place from being used for picking up or setting down
passengers.
This Court held that section 270-B, 270-C and 270-E of
the Madras District Municipalities Act do not affect the power of the
Transport Authority to regulate traffic control or impose restrictions
upon the licence of any such cart-stand.
Tn Municipal Board, Pushkar
v. State Transport Authority, Rajasthan(2 ) this Court pointed out that
a 'bus stand' meant a place where bus service commenced or terminated and that section 86 dealt with _parking places referred to in section
91 (2)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The fixation of bus stands was
held to be within section 68(2) (r) of the Act and the power to issue
the necessary notification was held to be implied in that clausS'·
Under section 76 of the Motor Vehicles Act the State Government
or any authority authorized in this behalf by the State Government may
in consultation with the local authority having jurisdiction in the area
concerned, determine places at which motor vehicles may stand either
indefinitely or for a specified period of time, and may determine the
places at which public service vehicles may stop for a longer time than
is necessary for the taking up and setting down of passengers.
U~
like section. 68 which confers power on the State Government alone this
(1)[!953] S.C.R. 290.
(2) [1963] Supp. (2) S.C.R. 373.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL V, SINDHI TRANSPORT SOCIETY LTD.
279
(Alogiriswami, J.)
section enables the State Government to authorize any authority to
take action under it.
As is clear from a reading of section 76, it does
not deal with a bus stand in the sense of a place for taking up and
setting down of p1ssengers, which is dealt with under section o8(2)(r).
While section 258(7)(n) may enable th& Municipal Council to regu~
late or prohibit the use of any ground under its control it does not
enable it to compel any body to use it as halting place etc. much Jess to
prescribe that no place other than the one provided by the Municipal
Council shall be used for setting down and taking up of passengers.
That can be done only under a provision like the one contained in
section 68(2) (r) & (s) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
It is interesting to note that in this case the respondents as well as
the Municipal Council had stated that the
District Magistrate had
declared the Bhopal Municipal Bus Stand as a bus stand.
Power to
specify t,he place under section 68(2) (r) & (s)
vests. in the State
Government.
Neither party has been able to show us that there is any
power in the State Government to delegate their power under this section to the District Magistrate nor have we been shown any notification
by the District Magistrate specifying the Bhopal Municipal Bus Stand
as one under the provisions of section 68(2) (r) & (s) of the Motor
Vehicles Act.
Apparently both the parties proceeded on a misapprehension. If at aU the District Magis•rate had taken any action it
could only be under section 76.
But that section does ·not enable him
to specify places for setting down or picking up of passenge" as we
pointed out earlier. Therefore, we must hold that the Madhya Pradesh High Court was in error in holding bye-law 2 valid.
Mr. M. C. Chagla, appearing for the Municipal Council, made
those four points :
1. There is no compulsion on any body to park his bns
within the municipal limits and that he can park it outside the municipal limits for the purpose of picking up
F
and setting down passe~gers.
G
2. That if he parks the bus in the municipal bus stand he
is using municipal land.
3. Tl\at this is with the permission of the Municipality.
4. ·That for this permission a permit is issued and a fee Is
charged.
The first proposition has only to be stated to be rejected.
The persoa
plying a motor bus for hire cannot exercise his trade or profession
effectively if he is not allowed to set down or take up passengers within
the limits of a town.
The Municipal Council cannot do indirectly what
it cannot do direct!~·. It cannot compel buses to go outside the municl·
H
pal limits in order to set down or pick up passengers.
This argument
is as fallacious as the one put forward by Mr. Phadke on behalf of the
respondent that he had a fundament":i right to use the Municipal bus
stand.
Nobody has a fundamental nght to use a land belonging to
~L373SupCI74
280
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
( 1974] 1 S.C.R.
another without that persop.'s permisiion or paying for it if p.ecessary.
While the Municipal Council has no power to compef persons plym.a
motor buses tor hrre to us.e only the Municipal bus stano for the purpose ol takmg up and settmg down passengers, there can be no oojection to its providmg a bus stand for anybouy who chooses to use it
voluntanJy and to such person being requrred to pay for such use.
In
that sense proposittons 2 and 3 put forward by Mr. Chagla are unexceptionable. It for this permission the formality of the issue of a
permit is followed and a fee is charged it caunot be said to be objectionable.
In that case the charges may be such as may be agreed upon between the parties, i.e. if the Municipality charges a certain rate
only people who are prepared to pay at that rate would resort to that
place.
Nobody can be compelled to go to that place.
Such a provision is permissible not under any provisions of the Madhya Pradesh
Municipalities Act but arises out of the rigbt which the Municipal
Council, like the owner of any other property has, to permit people to
use any property belonging to it only on certain conditions.
The byeIaws compel persons in charge of motor buses to use the Municipal
bus stand, which the Municipality has no power to do.
Consequently
we hold bye-law 2 as not valid and with it go the other bye-laws.
As
we have held bye-laws not valid we do not consider it necessary to deal
with the argument advanced by Mr. Phadke based on section 6 of the
Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947.
In the re~ult the appeal is dismissed; the appellant will pay the respondents' costs.
G.C.
Appeal dismissed.
A
B
c
D