("^ ^7 BWCH IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.C.NO. OF 2010 PETITIONER srrfy' RESPONDENTS o 6./w \ls^'^y ls-^;Ii^^^ Nizi Bus Malik Sangh, Mungeli through Secretary, Sudhir Singh S/o Shri N^B. Singh, aged about-31 years, R/o Bus Stand Imalipara, Gali No.2, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattigarh through Collector, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). 2. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Vikas Khandekar S/o Shri Vyasnarayan Khandekar, Contractor of '<'»A" A-'*' Mungeli Bus Stand, Distt. Bilaspur '''t/' (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ^ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA -The petitioner respectfully begs to submit as under:- 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As shown in the cause title PARTICULARS OF TiIE RESPONDENTS As shown in the cause title 3. PARTICULARS OF THE CAUSE/ORDER AGAINST WHICH TTIEPETITION IS MADE: 3.1 This petition is not directed against any particular order but it is directed against the inactiQn of the Respondent No.l and 2 as the Respondent No.3 is making recovery sym of Rs. 30/- and Rs.70/- from each of the Vehicle of the pefitioner Sangh which schedule from Mungeli Bus t HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (C) N0.1741 OF 2010 Nizi Bus Malik Sangh Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri M.K. Sinha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate for the respondent No.2. ORDERroRAL) (Passed onthis 24th day of September, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge announcement and the imposition of stand fees/tax from the buses, which are parked in the bus-stands within the territorial limit of Nagar Panchayat, Mungeli District- Bilaspur, on the ground that the said authorities are notcompetent 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. M.P. State Road Transport Corpn. andAnother. 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 order in Municipal Council, Manasa (supra), upholding the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. 4. Having considered the provisionsof Section 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 (for short "the Act, 1947") andthe provisions of Section 127 (1) (iii) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short "the Act, 1961"), the 1 (1997) 11 SCC640 6. 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 of the 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 hasnot 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 eye of law. Inthe result, the writ petifion isallowed. No order asto costs. Amit Satteb^ASB 3udge ibotn liiilBifjtiai'