PETITIONERS W 97“ 6 W.P.No. 4227 /O4 M/s. Kanker Roadways, Through Managing Partner, Preetam Singh Garcha, Administrative Office at Civil Line, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS % w} . e l” M/s. Rajnandgaon Road Lines, Through Partner Narendra Pal Singh Garcha, S/o. Late ]ogendra Singh Garcha, Aged about 45 years, R/o. Civil Lines, Raipur. M/s. Kanker Raod Lines, Kanker, Through Partner Smt. Divyajot Kour GarCha, W/o.‘Shri Narendra Pal Singh GorCha, Aged about 40 years, Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.) Municipal Council, Kirandul, Through Chief Municipal Officer. Municipal Council, Bacheli, Through Chief Municipal Officer. ]anpad Panchayat, Bhopal Patnam, Through President. lN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR . f‘ iRlO. Nagar Panchayat, Dongargaon, r4; @~ r K ~ A. Municipal Council, Kanker, Through Chief Municipal Officer, Kanker. g3‘ 5. MunicipalCorporation, ]agdalpur.Uw €mww'mc , k } 6. Gram Panchayat, Mandek, Through Sarpanch. £7. Gram Panchayat, Barsur, Through Sarpanch. 8. Gram Panchayat, Bhairamgarh, Through Sarpanch. 9. Nagar Panchayat, Dantewada, Through Chief Executive Officer. Through Chief Executive Officer. Nagar Panchayat, Geedam, Through Chief Executive Officer. W/Z’wa K 12. Nagar PanchayatPt’W /Thmugh M Chief Executive Officer. kll Nagar Panchayat, Chhuhikhadan, Through Chief Executive Officer. Khairagarh, Through Chief Executive Officer. r%\ l4. Nagar Panchayat, 15. Municipal Council, Baloda Bazar, Through Chief Executive Officer. /’ ) V W k 16. Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, F ’ Q Through Commissioner. l7. Nagar‘ Panchayat, Simga, Through Chief Executive Officer. K WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22‘i/OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA DETAILS OF THE PETITION w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH '. BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4227 OF 2004 M/s. Kanker Roadways & Others Versus Municipal CounciL Kirandul & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the C0n$titution of India) $ingle Bench : Hon‘ble Shri 3atish K. Agnihotri, J. HI L)P()NDI;N FS ‘I3r(~:a‘r~§ht :— Shri Vivek Verma,.Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawai, Shri Sourabh Sharma & Si'iri Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate forthe respondents No. 1, 2, 5, 9 & '1 1, Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No.3. Shri Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate for the respondent No.4. Shri Awadh Tripath, Advocate for‘the respondent N014. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Advocate for the respondent No.16, 8hri Ravindra Agrawai, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 7 QBDER o AL ‘ (Passed on this '10' day of September, 2010) Heard teamed counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge announcement and the imposition of. stand fees/tax from the buees, vvhich are parked in the bus-stands within the territoriai iimit of various Nagar Pal‘iohayats, Janpad Panchayats & Gram Panchayate of various Districts of State of Chhattisgarh. on the ground that the said authoritiesare not competent to levy toll tax on motor vehicles in view of the well settled proposition of law, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Manasa v. MP, State Road Transport Corpn. and Another’. lit. This very provision was tinder challenge in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which ultimately reached to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Couit handed down the order in Mimicipal 1 t {11997) '1 l am: r540 :3 Council, Manasa (supra), upholding the judgment of the Hi of Madhya Pradesh. Having considered the provisions of Section 6 of the Praclesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 (for short “the Act, 1947”) and the provisions of Section 127 (1) (iii) of the , Practesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short “the Act, 1961”), the Supreme Court held that the Act 1947 is a epecial enactment whiie‘ the Act, 1951 is a general enactment and that the prov Section 127 (1) (iii) and Section 6 of the Act, 1947 are to be read in of above . stated tax was notjust & proper: The aforesaid legal position has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing forthe respondents. 3 i, There is no other Taxation Act has thereafter been overriding or superseding the Act, 1947. Thus, the iinpugned‘ action taken by the respondent authorities is not at all sustainable in the eye of law. ln the result, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto cost / Agnihoml’ ii gh Court Madhya Madhya isions of (i3 t)w i' i 1S. / Sdl Saush K. Judge enacted a way that both can stand together. Thus, the imposition