^-' \... .•^^^•^.•' IN a»ffl< ®©(niTOF eaaAttssAaa AT Br&Asarea fGe). «rlt Patttteit tfe.160^ EettAAoners it. Ba<?iveffldra Slngb, aged about 39 yeu'B, r/a Seir Poltee Iitaas, aiiihaoi (ap^. 2. Irfixal Narayan Supta, son ot Shrl 'niiratli Prasad Supta, aged abou* M. yaars, r/o.S<»uclBg B®ardCelony., 5. Boop ebaa* IBanslaal, soa ot Qu-t T. a. Maaelani.iT asea aboat 28 yetu's, r/e lidtbera ;>Eola Budliar, di B* t ShAdel (MP). Re^poadents :$!.. 3he State ot GIihatt^siarfa, tArougfa ^<^/ tlie S»<a"etary Ii60*l Self &overiuitiflt, :v '?••"[..•••" B.K. Bhawua, •alpur (C6). t^'?^^ A^V 2. "Ke Mualclsal C®unctlManBndragarIkt ^<y^ ^y l'?< Blstrlet Korea (ea?. *«yr' &>* KjMET IPB'rxa'ION tiSBBB AB'riGI.B 226 OF 3HB <»NSa3E«'EI©i( .oy-iaoiA i • , ^ .'. • : .;: i i ;'vvi'ef.;v-fi,s^^*y-- v\? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.1004 OF 2001 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Raghvendra Sing.h & Others Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. A^nihotri, J. Present:- Shri Vivek Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. ShriA.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyerforthe State. Shri Ravi Dutta, Advocate for the respondent No.2. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 26th day ofAugust, 2010) 1. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge announcement and the imposition of stand fees/tax fro'n the buses, which are parked in the bus-stand within the tem'torial limit of Municipa! Council, Manendragarh, District Korea, vide resolution dated 21-7- 2000 and notification dated 11-8-2000 & 29-8-2000 (Annexures R/3 & R/4), on the ground that the Municipal Council 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 MunJcipal Council, Manasa v. M.P. State Road Transpoi~t Corpn. and Anofher . 3. 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 oro'er in Municipal Council, Manasa (supra), upholding the judgment of the High Court ofMadhya Pradesh. 4. Having considered the provisions of Section 6 of the fuladhya Pradesh ?tf!otor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 (for short "the Act, ' (1997; 11 SCC640 '"':•»•":'<"-IS?'i'nB^'"^^^fsN^s w ^i^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^s^ Gowri 5. 6 7. 2 VA\ 1547") and the provisions of Section 127 (1) (iii) of the Madhya 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) apd Section 6 oftheAct, 1947 are to be read in a way that both can stand together. Thus, the imposition of above stated tax was not just & proper. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that the Act, 1947 is not applicable on the ground that subsequent Act, 1961 has obtained assent of the President of India and secondly, the bye-laws framed in exercise of powers under Section 358 (4) (kh) (chh) of the Manendragarh Nagar Palika Sadko Tatha Sarvajanik Sthano Par Astai Dhakhal Upvidhia 2000, have overriding effect. The aforesaid contention on behalf of the respondent No.2 is noticed to be rejected, as the Supreme Court has already held that the Act, 1961 is a general enactment and the Act, 1947 was a special enactment. 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 eye of law. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge