IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 07.12.2010
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU
W.P.No. 7500 of 2002
Thirukkadaiyur Sri Amirthakadeswaraswamy
Devasthanam, owned by Dharmapuram Adheenam
and rep. By Hereditory Trustee
Sri-la-sri Shanmuga Desiga Gnanasambanda
Pandara Sannathi Avargal
Thirukkadaiyur, Tharangambadi Taluk
Nagapattinam District. ...Petitioner
-vs-
1. The District Collector
Nagapattinam.
2. Thirukkadaiyur Panchayat
rep by its President
Thirukkadaiyur, Tharangambadi Taluk
Nagapattinam District ... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondents ending with the order of the first respondent in Rc. No. 5786/ 2001/ A3/ c.,.(C) dated 28.1.2002 and quash the same and forbear the respondents herein and their men, agents and subordinates from collecting entry fees/ parking fees from the vehicles parked in the lands belonging to the petitioner temple, in particular both side margins of West Street and upto Vinayagar temple in Sannathi street, Thirukkadaiyur.
For Petitioner : Mr.Kandavadivel Doraisami
For Respondents: Mr.V.Srikanth for R1
Mr.V.Subbarayan for R2
ORDER
The petitioner herein is the Thirukkadaiyur Sri Amirthakades-waraswamy Devasthanam owned by Dharmapuram Adheenam and the same is represented by the Hereditory Trustee. The said temple is very famous one which attracts worshippers in large numbers from all over the state and even from the neighbouring states in huge numbers every day. On account of the same, number of vehicles enter into the panchayat limits of Thirukkadaiyur panchayat. With a view to augment the income of the panchayat, the second respondent herein passed a resolution dated 7.11.2001 deciding to collect fees from such vehicles which enters the panchayat limits. The said resolution was submitted to the Inspector of Panchayat viz., the District Collector, Nagapattinam. The District Collector/ the first respondent herein by his proceedings in Rc. No. 5786/ 2001/ A3/ c.,.(C) dated 28.1.2002 granted such permission to collect fees at Rs.20/- for heavy motor vehicles, Rs.10/- for light motor vehicles and Rs.2/- for two and three wheelers and cycle rickshaws, which enter into the Thirukkadaiyur panchayat. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has come before this Court.
2. It is contended by the petitioner that without establishing any landing place, halting place or cart stand, the panchayat has no power to collect any fees for no services rendered by them and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. But in the counter filed by the first respondent it is contended that the impugned order came to be passed in pursuance of Section 154 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat Act, 1994 and the power of the District Collector vested under Rule 3 of Tamil Nadu Panchayat (Public Landing Places, Halting Places, cart stands) Rules 1999 and also under various other guidelines issued by the Government. The ownership of the land surrounding the temple is also under dispute.
3. I have considered the above said submissions. At the outset, I have to state that Section 154 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 empowers the Village Panchayat to provide public landing places, halting places and cart-stands and levy fees for their use. The said provision viz., Section 154 of the Act reads as follows:-
“Public landing places and cart-stands, etc, – Subject to such Rules as may be prescribed, the Village Panchayat may –
(a) Provide public landing places, halting places and cart-stands (which last expression includes stands for animals and vehicles of any description including motor vehicles) and levy fees for their use; and
(b) where any such place or stand has been provided, prohibit the use for the same purpose by any person, within such distance thereof of any public place or the sides of any public road as the Village Panchayat may, subject to the control of the Inspector, specify. ”
4. A close reading of the said provision would go to show that what is collected is not tax, but only fees. Thus fees can be levied only for the services rendered. As per Section 154(a) of the Act such fee can be collected only for the use of public landing places, halting places and cart-stands provided by the village panchayat. But in the case on hand, no such public landing place, halting place and cart-stand was provided by the panchayat for parking the vehicles. Therefore, without providing public landing places, halting places and cart-stands for parking the vehicles, it is wholly without jurisdiction for the panchayat to levy such fees.
5. Coming to Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat (Public Landing Places, Halting Places, cart stands) Rules 1999, I have to state that it is only to supplement Section 154 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. There is no conflict between these two provisions. The said Rule 3 reads as follows:-
Application to provide public landing places, halting places and cart- stands. – When a Village Panchayat proposes to provide a public landing place, halting place or cart-stand shall submit an application to the Inspector. The application shall contain –
(a) the survey number, extent and classification of the land in which the Village Panchayat proposes to provide the landing place or halting place, cart-stand and shall be accompanied by a sketch indicating the position or location of the land with reference to the important roads and other lands in the neighbourhood; and
(b) any other particulars which the Inspector may specifically require.
6. According to this Rule, first of all, it is for the panchayat to propose to provide a public landing place or halting place or cart-stand on a specified land and thereafter, an application has to be made by them giving details of the survey number, extent, and classification etc., to the District Collector. Here in this case, there is no such specific place earmarked for the purpose of public landing place or halting place, cart stand etc., for the vehicle which enter into the village. The order reflects that levy of fees has been made in respect of any vehicle which enters into the panchayat limits of Thirukkadaiyur. This is in my considered opinion, is wholly without jurisdiction. Thus, it is crystal clear that for service rendered, fee is sought to be levied for which the respondents has lack power and so the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
7. The question regarding ownership of the land surrounding the temple need not be gone into in this writ petition as the same would be an unnecessary exercise.
8. In view of all the above, the impugned order dated 28.1.2002 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
07.12.2010
Index : Yes/ No
Internet : Yes/No
bg/
To
1. The District Collector
Nagapattinam.
2. Thirukkadaiyur Panchayat
rep by its President
Thirukkadaiyur, Tharangambadi Taluk
Nagapattinam District
S.NAGAMUTHU,J.
bg/-
WP.No. 7500 of 2002
07.12.2010