IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. No. £ n7 3" [2005 PETITIONER V, 1. Prahalad Tiwari, Bhanu Pratap Tiwari, Aged about 36 years, R/o, Kapil Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Sudhir Singh, S/O. MP. Singh, V Aged about 24 yeérs’y VR/Vo. Imlipara, Bilaspur (C.G.) ,3. Smt. Gopika Bai Jaiswal, Aged QW.‘ ..- vé? )A about 60 years, W/o. Late RA. Jaiswal, R/o. Bangalipara, Gali No. 4, New Sarkanda, Bilaspur [C.G.) Prem Prakash Lat, S/o. Late Hari Shankar Lat, R/o. Bilaspur (C.G.) Nand Lal Verma, S/o. Priharilal Verma, aged about 46 years, R/o. Chakarbhata, Bilaspur (C.G.) Firoj Shah Ahmed, S/o. Abdul Ajim Ahmed, Aged about 24 years, R/o. Jhoprapara, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pratap Singh Khande, S/o. Laxmi Dayal Khande, Aged about 26 years, R/o. Village Lauda, District Bilaspur (C.Gr.)‘ v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO,1879 OF 2005 PETITIONERS Prahalad Tiwari & Others Versus Nagar Panchayat, Takhatpur & Another (Writ Petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. ‘ REE§PONQFNTS Present :w 8hri Vivek Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate for the respondents. ’ ORDER (ORAL ) (Passed on this 8‘” day of September, 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge annuuncement and the imposition o‘f stand fees/tax from the busesu which are' parked in the bus—stand within the territorial limit of Nagar Panchayat Takhatpur 8t Mungeli, District Bilaspur, vide resolution ‘ dated 16-1-2003 and 31—3-2003 on the ground that the Nagar Panchayat is 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. Sitate Road Transport Corpn. and Another’. This very provision was under challenge in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which ultimately reached to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court handed down the order in Municipal ‘ ‘ Council, Manasa (supra), upholding the judgment ofthe High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Having considered the provisions of Section 6 of the Madhya' Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 (for short ”the Act, 1947”) and the provisions of Section 127 (1) (iii) of the Madhya , y (1997) l 11 SCC 640 \\ \ Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short “the Act, 1961”), the Supreme Court held that the Act, 1947 is a special enactment while the Act, 1961 is a general enactment and that the provisions of Section 127 (1) (iii) and Section 6 ofthe Act, 1947 are to be read in a way that both can stand together. Thus, the imposition of above Stated tax was not just & proper. The aforesaid legal position has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. There is no other Taxation Act has thereafter been enacted overriding or superseding the Act, 1947. Thus, the impugned action taken by the respondent authorities is not at all sustainable ‘ in the e‘ye of law. ln the result, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. (30W! Sd/a Satish K. Agnihotri Judge i