1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Petition (MD)No.13985 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 S.Selvakumar ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Arignar Anna Maligai, Thallakulam, Madurai-2. 2.The Commissioner, The Department of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Nungampakkam, Chennai-34. 3.The Joint Commissioner/ Executive Officer, Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareshwarar Temple, Madurai. 4.J.Samsudeen ... Respondents Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to restrain the collection of parking fee by unauthorized persons, strangers, including the 3rd respondent from the devotees who come on pilgrimage to Madurai in their vehicles, in pursuance of petitioner's representation, dated 01.12.2011. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Palanivelayutham For Respondent-1 : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For Respondent-2 : Mr.K.Mahendran, Spl.Govt.Pleader. For Respondent-3 : Mr.S.Manohar For Respondent-4 : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy ORDER [Order of the Court was made K.N.BASHA, J] The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking for a direction to the 1st respondent to restrain the collection of parking fee by unauthorized persons, strangers, including the 3rd https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 respondent from the devotees who come on pilgrimage to Madurai in their vehicles, in pursuance of petitioner's representation, dated 01.12.2011. 2.Mr.S.Palanivelayutham, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is a resident of Dindigul and he use to go on pilgrimage to almost all the temples in the State of Tamil Nadu. It is contended that on 01.12.2011, the petitioner, along with his family members, visited Madurai in a bus bearing Regn.No.TN 51 2777. They went to Arulmigu Sri Kallalagar Thirukovil at Alagarkovil and they paid a sum of Rs.200/-, towards parking fee, to the person who claimed that he is licensed to collect such fee. Thereafter, they went to Thirupparankundram, where also they paid Rs.100/-, towards parking fee, to the licensee. After having darshan in the above two temples, they came to Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple at Madurai. Their vehicle was originally directed to be parked at Ellis Nagar Main Road and hence they went there. A person, claiming to be the licensee for collecting parking fees, demanded a sum of Rs.50/- for parking the vehicle. The petitioner, being an Advocate, asked the said person to disclose his identity, for which he replied that he is working under one J.Samsudeen, the 4th respondent herein, who is the licensee to collect parking fees. Immediately, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.50/- to the said person and he issued a receipt, bearing No.000029, dated 01.12.2011, for the same. When they were about to move to the Temple, another person came and instructed them that the vehicle should not be parked on the roadside and the same should be parked in a nearby place, surrounded by compound walls. Accordingly, the driver took the vehicle to the said place and parked it. Immediately, another person came there and tore a ticket and demanded parking fees. When questioned, the said person replied that the fee demanded by him is meant for the developmental work of Arulmigu Meenakshiamman Temple and the same is being collected by the 3rd respondent, at the instance of the 2nd respondent. 3.It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the persons like the petitioner, who are devotees, coming on pilgrimage, are being compelled to pay parking fees both by the private licensee as well as the Temple Authorities, thereby causing irreparable loss to the devotees. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Public Interest Litigation seeking the above said relief has been filed by the petitioner. 4.Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, would submit that the 4th respondent is the person licensed to collect parking fees from the persons who are parking their respective vehicles on the Ellis Nagar Main Road and other places in the Madurai City. He would further submit that the licence is for the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 and as such the 4th respondent is entitled to collect parking fees. 5.Mr.S.Manohar, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Temple, would submit that the temple is not liable to obtain any licence from the Municipal Corporation, as they are allowing the vehicles to be parked in the land belonged to the temple. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision reported in AIR (30) 1943 Madras 336 In re M.Murtuzali Sahib. It is further contended that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 temple is exempted from obtaining any licence for collecting parking fees, as per Section 348 of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would further submit that the 4th respondent herein has already filed a writ petition and arguments were heard and the same is pending for final disposal, as on date, before a learned Single Judge of this Court. Therefore, it is submitted that the present writ petition is only proxy-PIL and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. 6.Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned Standing Counsel for the Madurai Municipal Corporation, appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that only the 4th respondent has been issued with a licence to collect parking fees from the vehicles and not the 3rd respondent, namely the Authorities of Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple. It is contended that as per the provisions under Section 358 of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971, no person shall open a new private cart-stand or continue to keep open a private cart-stand, unless he obtains from the Commissioner a licence to do so. It is contended that the the 3rd respondent Temple Authorities have not been issued with any licence till date to collect parking fee from any one of the areas in the Madurai City Corporation Limits. 7.We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions put-forward by the counsel on either side and perused the entire materials available on record. 8.The crux of the question involved in this matter is whether the 3rd respondent Temple Authorities are entitled to collect parking fees for parking the vehicles in and around Madurai City Municipal Corporation. 9.The main contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 is to the effect that they are collecting parking fees only from the vehicles which are parked in the land belonged to the Temple and further they are exempted, as per the provisions of Section 348 of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971, from obtaining any licence for collecting such fees. Yet another contention of the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent is that the present writ petition is only a proxy-PIL and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. 10.Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent that the present writ petition is only a proxy-PIL, we are unable to countenance such a contention for the simple reason that the petitioner, who is a practising Advocate, has come forward with this petition with specific allegations and averments to the effect that he has paid parking fees to the 4th respondent as well as the third respondent temple authorities and as such he has been put into great hardship and irreparable loss. Hence, the present petition filed by the petitioner, by way of Public Interest Litigation, cannot be considered to be a proxy-PIL, merely on the ground that the 4th respondent has already filed another writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.13476 of 2011 and the same is pending before a learned Single Judge of this Court. 11.Coming to the contention that the 3rd respondent need not obtain licence from the 1st respondent, Section 358(1) of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 reads as under: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 "358.Licence for private cart-stand.--(1)No person shall open a new private cart-stand or continue to keep open a private cart-stand unless he obtains from the commissioner a licence to do so." A reading of Section 358(1) of the Act makes it crystal clear that no one is entitled to open a new private parking place, without obtaining licence from the Commissioner. It is the case of the 3rd respondent that they need not obtain any licence in respect of their private land. As stated earlier, as per Section 358 of the Act, a private person, in respect of a new cart-stand, has to obtain from the Commissioner a licence to do so. In this case, as admitted by the 3rd respondent, they have not obtained any licence to do so from the 1st respondent. 12.Coming to the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent in AIR (30) 1943 Madras 336, cited supra, the facts of the said case are not applicable to the present case. It was a case where the owner of an old cart stand did take out a licence but failed to comply with the terms thereof and in such circumstances, it was held that he did not contravene any of the provisions of S.270-E of Madras District Municipalities Act. In the present case, it is not the case of the 3rd respondent that the present place is an old private cart- stand and in respect of which they have already obtained licence. 13.The claim of the 3rd respondent is that they come under the category of Government, by placing reliance on the exemption granted under Section 348 of the Act. Section 348 of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971, reads as under: "348.Government and market committees not to obtain licences and permissions.--Nothing in this Act or in any rule, by-law or regulation made thereunder shall be construed as requiring the taking out of any licence or the obtaining of any permission under this Act or any such rule, by-law or regulation in respect of any place in the occupation or under the control of the Government or the Central Government or of a market committee established or deemed to be established under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act XXIII of 1959), or in respect of any property belonging to the Government or the Central Government or to such market committee." After going through the above provisions of law, we are of the view that Section 348 of the Act is not applicable to the case of the 3rd respondent, as the Temple is a separate entity and the same is managed by Trustees and, as such, they cannot claim that they come within the purview of the Government, as contemplated under Section 348 of the Act. Therefore, they cannot claim any exemption by taking shelter under Section 348 of the Act. 14.The learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, namely Madurai City Municipal Corporation, has categorically submitted before this Court that only the 4th respondent was issued with a licence to collect parking fees and the same is valid as on date. Such being the position, we are of the view that the 4th respondent is entitled to collect parking fees from the vehicles parked in and around the Madurai City limits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 15.With the above observations, the writ petition is hereby disposed of. No costs. Connected MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) / True Copy / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Arignar Anna Maligai, Thallakulam, Madurai-2. 2.The Commissioner, The Department of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Nungampakkam, Chennai-34. 3.The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareshwarar Temple, Madurai. +1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR : 44594 +1CC TO MR.T.LAJAPATHI ROY, ADVOCATE SR : 44475 +1CC TO MR.S.MANOHAR, ADVOCATE SR : 44643 Gb SR : 28.12.2011 : 5p/7c Order in W.P.(MD)No.13985/2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Dated:19.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/