{"id":18733,"date":"1973-07-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1973-07-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-council-bhopal-vs-sindhi-sahiti-multipurpose-on-24-july-1973"},"modified":"2016-10-06T22:38:35","modified_gmt":"2016-10-06T17:08:35","slug":"municipal-council-bhopal-vs-sindhi-sahiti-multipurpose-on-24-july-1973","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-council-bhopal-vs-sindhi-sahiti-multipurpose-on-24-july-1973","title":{"rendered":"Municipal Council, Bhopal vs Sindhi Sahiti Multipurpose … on 24 July, 1973"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Municipal Council, Bhopal vs Sindhi Sahiti Multipurpose … on 24 July, 1973<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 2420, \t\t 1974 SCR (1) 274<\/div>\n
Author: A Alagiriswami<\/div>\n
Bench: Alagiriswami, A.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BHOPAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSINDHI SAHITI MULTIPURPOSE TRANSPORTCO-OP.  SOCIETY LTD. & A\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT24\/07\/1973\n\nBENCH:\nALAGIRISWAMI, A.\nBENCH:\nALAGIRISWAMI, A.\nPALEKAR, D.G.\n\nCITATION:\n 1973 AIR 2420\t\t  1974 SCR  (1) 274\n 1973 SCC  (2) 478\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1987 SC1339\t (6)\n\n\nACT:\nMadhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961-Bye-laws made  under\nprovisions  s. 358 (7) (f) and (m) read with s. 349 (ii)  of\nAct-Bye-law  2 providing for motor-buses Plying for hire  to\nbe compulsorily parked at Municipal bus stand Bye-laws 3  to\n7  providing for fee payable for parking-Bye-law 2 does\t not\nfall under s. 349(ii) or s. 358(7) (f) or (m) of Act and  is\ninvalid-Consequently  bye-laws 3 to 7 providing for levy  of\nfee also invalid.\nMotor Vehicles Act 4 of 1939 s. 68(2)-Power to specify place\nof  Bus-stand under section rests with State Government\t and\nnot with Dist.\tMagistrate-Cannot he\tdelegated\t  to\nDistrict Magistrate.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  Municipal\tCouncil of Bhopal made\tbye-laws  under\t the\nprovisions of s.    358(7)(f)  and  (m)\t read  with  section\n349(ii)\t of  the Madhya Pradesh\t Municipalities\t Act,  1961.\nBye-law\t 2  provided that no person inching of\ta  motor-bus\nplying\tfor  hire  shall for the purpose  of  taking  up  or\nsetting\t down of passengers, park or stop his  bus  anywhere\nwithin\tthe  limits  of\t the  municipality  ,except  at\t the\nmunicipal Bus Stand.  The other bye-laws provided for a levy\nof  a fee of Re.  1 \/- for every 8 hours or part thereof  in\nrespect\t of the use of the bus stand by such buses  and\t for\nthe issue of a permit on such payment.\tThe respondent filed\na  writ in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging\t the\nsaid  bye-laws.\t  The High Court held that  bye-law  1\t(c).\nwhich defined the expression 'Municipal Bus Stand' and\tbye-\nlaw  2 were valid but held bye-laws 3 to 7.  which  provided\nfor  the  payment of fee and the giving of permit  etc.,  as\ninvalid\t and  restrained the Municipal Council\tfrom  giving\neffect to those bye-laws in any manner.\nDismissing the appeal by certificate filed by the  Municipal\nCouncil.\nHELD  : (i) Section 349(ii) was not applicable to the  case.\nThe section itself does not enable the Municipal Council  to\nrequire that permission should be obtained for any  purpose.\nIt  deals  with\t levy- of fees\tfor  permissions  which\t are\nrequired  to  be  taken for  various  purposes\tunder  other\nsections of the Act such as sections 187(3), 194 and 223(4).\nThe  relevant  words in the section  deal  with\t permissions\ngranted to individuals to temporarily occupy municipal land.\nIt  would be doing violence to that section to hold that  it\ndeals with the provision of a bus-stand.  In the context  of\nthat section it was difficult to  hold that when people were\ncompelled to use the bus stand constructed by the  Municipal\nCouncil it was a permission for temporary occupation of land\nbelonging to the Council. [276F]\n(ii) It\t was not possible to relate the provision of  clause\n(f)  of sub-section 7 ,of section 358 as having anything  to\ndo with the provision of a bus-stand.  As regards clause (m)\nof  sub-section\t 7,  \"the  regulating  and  prohibiting\t the\nstationing of carts..... on any ground under the control  of\nthe Council or the using of such ground as halting place  of\nvehicles  cannot  be  said to relate  to  the  provision  of\nMunicipal bus stand.  The power to regulate or prohibit\t the\nuse  of Municipal land as halting place of vehicles  cannot\nbe  used to compel people use such land as  halting  places.\nSuch  a\t power\tmust be specifically given.   The  power  to\ncompel\tpersons\t in charge of motor buses to  stop  only  at\ncertain places for the purpose of taking up or setting\tdown\nof passengers is a matter which relates to motor traffic and\nthere is a specific provision in section 68 (2) (4) and\t (s)\nof the Motor Vehicles Act for this specific purpose. [277H]\n2 75\nT.   B.\t Ibrahim v. S.T.C. Tanjore,<\/a> [1953] S.C.R.  290.\t and\nMunicipal  Board,  Pushkar v. State.   Transport  Authority,\nRajasthan,<\/a> [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 373, referred to.\n(iii)\t  The  bye-laws\t compel persons in charge  of  motor\nbuses to use the Municipal bus stand, which the Municipality\nhad no power to do.  Consequently it must be held that\tbye-\nlaw 2 is not valid and with it must go the other bye-laws.\n(iv) Further,  in the present case the\tDistrict  Magistrate\nhad  admittedly declared the Bhopal Municipal Bus  Stand  as\nbus  stand.  Power to specify the place under section  68(2)\n(r) and (s) vests in the State Government.  It has not\tbeen\nshown  that the State Government had any power\tto  delegate\ntheir power under this section to the District\tMagistrate,.\nIt  has also not shown that the District  Magistrate  issued\nany  notification  specifying the' Bhopal Bus Stand  as\t one\nunder  the  provisions of section 68(2)(r) and\t(s)  of\t the\nMotor  Vehicles Act.  If at all the District Magistrate\t had\ntaken  any  action it could only be under s. 76.   But\tthat\nsection\t does not enable him to specify places\tfor  setting\ndown or picking up of passengers.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1547  of
\n1967.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby  certificate from the judgment  and\torder  dated
\nOctober\t 18,  1966  of\tthe Madhya  Pradesh  High  Court  at
\nJabalpur in Misc.  Petition No. 557 of 1960.
\nM.   C.\t Chagla, Rameshwar Nath and Seeta Vaidialingam,\t for
\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n
M.   N.\t Phadke and A,.\t G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondent\t No.\n<\/p>\n
1.
\nI. N. Shroff and R. P. Kapur, for respondent No. 2.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nALAGIRISWAMI, J.-On 6-11-1964 the Municipal Council of\tBho-
\npal  made bye-laws under the provisions of s. 356.(7) (f)  &\n<\/p>\n
(x)   read   with   s.\t349(ii)\t of   the   Madhya   Pradesh
\nMunicipalities\tAct, 1961 after previous publication in\t the
\nM.  P. Rapatra as required under s. 357(4) and\tconfirmation
\nby  the\t State Government under s. 357(3) in  respect  of  a
\nMunicipal  bus\tstand.\tBye-law 2 of the  bye-laws  provided
\nthat  no  person in charge of a motor-bus  plying  for\thire
\nshall  for  the\t purpose of taking up  or  setting  down  of
\npassengers, park or stop his bus anywhere within the  limits
\nof  the\t Bhopal\t Municipality except at\t the  Municipal\t Bus
\nStand.\t The other bye-laws provided for a levy of a fee  of
\nRe.  1\/for every eight hours or part thereof in\t respect  of
\nthe, use of the bus stand by such buses and for the issue of
\na  permit  on such payment.  On 13-11-1964  the\t respondents
\nfiled  a writ petition in the High Court of  Madhya  Pradesh
\nchallenging  the  said bye-laws.  The High Court  held\tthat
\nbye-law\t 1 (c), which defined the expression ‘Municipal\t Bus
\nStand’\tand bye-law 2, which has been set out earlier,\twere
\nvalid,\tbut  held  by laws 3 to 7, which  provided  for\t the
\npayment of fee and the giving of a permit etc., as  invalid,
\nand  restrained the Municipal Council from giving effect  to
\nthose  bye-laws\t in any manner.\t The Municipal\tCouncil\t was
\nalso   directed\t to  refund  the  fee  collected  from\t the
\nrespondents.,  This appeal has been filed by  the  Municipal
\nCouncil by certificate granted by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
276<\/span><\/p>\n
Section\t 349(ii)  of the Madhya Pradesh\t Municipalities\t Act
\nreads
\n\t      ‘The  Council  may charge such fee as  may  be
\n\t      prescribed by bye-laws for-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (i)………………………\n<\/p>\n
\t      (ii)  any\t permission granted under  this\t Act
\n\t      for  making  any\ttemporary  erection  or\t for
\n\t      putting up any projection or for the temporary
\n\t      occupation of any public street or any land or
\n\t      building belonging to the Council; and\n<\/p>\n
\t      (iii)……………………\n<\/p>\n
\t      Section  358 in so far as it is  relevant\t for
\n\t      the purpose of this case reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In addition to any power specially  conferred
\n\t      by  this\tAct,  the Council  may,\t and  if  so
\n\t      required\tby the State Government shall,\tmake
\n\t      bye-laws for-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1)<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (7)   Public,  Health,  Safety,  Nuisance\t and
\n\t      Sanitation-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (f)   prohibiting or regulating with a view to
\n\t      sanitation  or the prevention of disease,\t any
\n\t      act  which  occasions or which  is  likely  to
\n\t      occasion\t a  public  nuisance  and  for\t the
\n\t      prohibition   or\t regulation  of\t  which\t  no
\n\t      provision is made under this heading;\n<\/p>\n
\t      (n)   regulating\t  and\t prohibiting\t the
\n\t      stationing of carts or picketing of animals on
\n\t      any ground under the control-of the Council or
\n\t      the using of such ground as halting place,  of
\n\t      vehicles\t or  animals  or  as  a\t place\t for
\n\t      encampment or the causing or permitting of any
\n\t      animal to stray.\n<\/p>\n
\t      It  appears  to us that S.  349(ii)  does\t not
\n\t      apply  to this case.  The relevant portion  of
\n\t      that section reads :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  Council  may charge such fee as  may  be
\n\t      prescribed.for  any permission  granted  under
\n\t      this Act\t ……….for\t   the\t   temporary
\n\t      occupation of    any land ……….belonging
\n\t      to the Council.”\n<\/p>\n
The  section itself does not enable the Municipal Council to
\nrequire that   permission   should  be\tobtained   for\t any
\npurpose.  It deals with levy  of fees for permissions  which
\nare  required to be taken for various purposes\tunder  other
\nsections  of  the  Act.\t Section  187(3)  which\t deals\twith
\npermission to erect, alter, add to or reconstruct buildings,
\nand section 194 which deals with permission to the owners or
\noccupiers of buildings in public street to put up verandahs,
\nbalconies or rooms, to project from any upper Story  thereof
\nare  instances\tin  point.   The,  permission  mentioned  in
\nsection\t 194  is one of the matters for ‘which fees  can  be
\nprescribed  under  section 349(ii).   Section  223(4)  deals
\nwith’, allowing any temporary occupation or erection in\t any
\npublic\tstreet on occasions of festivals and ceremonies,  or
\nallowing  the  occupation  of,\tor  temporary  erection\t  of
\nstructures for any other purpose.\n<\/p>\n
2 7 7
\nFees  can be prescribed under section 349(ii) in respect  of
\nthese  matters.\t The words above mentioned in  that  section
\ndeal  with permission granted to individuals to\t temporarily
\noccupy\tmunicipal land.\t It would be doing violence to\tthat
\nsection\t to hold that it deals with the provision of a\tbus-
\nstand.\t In the context of that section it is  difficult  to
\nhold  that  when  people are compelled to use  a  bus  stand
\nconstructed by the Municipal Council it is a permission\t for
\ntemporary occupation of land belonging to the Council.
\nLet us now consider if under the provisions of section\t358,
\nalready\t extracted, the Municipal Council can  validly\tmake
\nthe  present  bylaws.\tIt is not  possible  to\t relate\t the
\nprovision of clause (f) of subsection (7) as having anything
\nto do with the provision of a bus stand.  As regards  clause
\n(in) of sub-section (7) “the regulating and prohibiting\t the
\nstationing of carts…… on any ground under the control of
\nthe Council or the using of such ground as halting place  of
\nvehicles”  cannot  be said to relate to the provision  of  a
\nMunicipal bus stand.  The power to regulate or prohibit\t the
\nuse of municipal land as halting place of vehicles cannot be
\nused to compel people use such land as halting places.\tSuch
\na  power must be specifically given.  Compare  this  section
\nwith  sections\t270-B  and  270-C  of  the  Madras  District
\nMunicipalities Act, 1920, which read as follows
\n\t      “270-B.\t(1)   The  municipal   council\t may
\n\t      construct\t or  provide  and  maintain   public
\n\t      landing places, halting places and cart stands
\n\t      and may levy fees for the use of the same.
\n\t      (1-A)……………………….
\n\t      (2)…A statement in English and a  vernacular
\n\t      language of the district of the fees fixed  by
\n\t      the council for the use of such place shall be
\n\t      put up in a conspicuous part thereof.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Explanation:A  cart  stand shall\tbe  for\t the
\n\t      purposes\tof  this Act includes  a  stand\t for
\n\t      carriages including motor vehicles within\t the
\n\t      meaning of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1914
\n\t      and animals.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      “270-C.\t Where\ta  municipal   council\t has
\n\t      provided a public landing place, halting place
\n\t      or  cart-stand,  the executive  authority\t may
\n\t      prohibit\tthe use for the same purpose by\t any
\n\t      person within such distance thereof, as may be
\n\t      determined  by the municipal council,  of\t any
\n\t      public  place  or\t the  sides  of\t any  public
\n\t      street.”\n<\/p>\n
Even these sections deal with use of landing places, halting
\nplaces\tand  cart-stands  outdo not  deal  with\t places\t for
\nsetting down or taking up of passengersIt  is well to  keep
\nclear  in one’s mind the distinction between halting  places
\nwhich would be the equivalents of garages of private persons
\nand  places  where passengers may be set down and  taken  up
\nwhich can properly be called bus stands.  The power to\tcom-
\npel persons in charge of motor buses to stop only at certain
\nplaces\tfor  the  purpose of taking up or  setting  down  of
\npassengers  is a matter which relates to motor\ttraffic\t and
\nthere is a specific provision in sec-\n<\/p>\n
278<\/span><\/p>\n
tion  68  (2) (r) & (s) of the Motor Vehicles Act  for\tthis
\nspecific purpose.  They read as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “68.  (2) Without prejudice to the  generality
\n\t      of  the’\tforegoing power,  rules\t under\tthis
\n\t      section may be made with respect to all or any
\n\t      of the following matters, namely\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (r)   prohibiting\t the picking up\t or  setting
\n\t      down  of\tpassengers  by\tstage  or   contract
\n\t      carriages at specified places or in  specified
\n\t      areas  or at places other than  duly  notified
\n\t      stands  or  halting places and  requiring\t the
\n\t      driver of a stage carriage to stop and  remain
\n\t      stationary  for  a  reasonable  time  when  so
\n\t      required\tby a passenger desiring to board  or
\n\t      alight from the vehicle at a notified  halting
\n\t      place;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (s)   the requirements which shall be complied
\n\t      with  in the construction or use of  any\tduly
\n\t      notified\tstands or halting  place,  including
\n\t      the   provision  of  adequate  equipment\t and
\n\t      facilities  for the convenience of  all  users
\n\t      thereof,\tthe  fees,  if\tany,  which  may  be
\n\t      charged  for the use of such  facilities,\t the
\n\t      records  which  shall be\tmaintained  at\tsuch
\n\t      stands  or  places, the staff to\tbe  employed
\n\t      thereat,\tand the duties and conduct  of\tsuch
\n\t      staff,  and  generally  for  maintaining\tsuch
\n\t      stands  and places in a serviceable and  clean
\n\t      condition.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This Court in T. B. Ibrahim v. R.T.C., Tanjore<\/a>() held  that
\nthe  expression ‘duly notified stand’ in the Motor  Vehicles
\nAct   means  ‘a\t stand\tduly  notified\tby   the   Transport
\nAuthority’.  It was contended before this Court that section
\n68(2) (r) of the Motor Vehicles Act did not confer the power
\nupon  the  transport authority to direct the fixing  or\t the
\nalteration  of\ta  bus-stand.\tThis  Court  rejected\tthat
\ncontention.  It pointed out that the section gives power  to
\nthe Government to prohibit a specified place from being used
\nfor picking up or setting down passengers.  This Court\theld
\nthat  section 270-B, 270-C and 270-E of the Madras  District
\nMunicipalities Act do not affect the power of the  Transport
\nAuthority to regulate traffic control or impose restrictions
\nupon  the  licence of any such\tcart-stand.   In  Municipal.
\nBoard,\tPushkar v. State Transport Authority, Rajasthan<\/a>\t (2)
\nthis  Court  pointed out that a ‘bus stand’  meant  a  place
\nwhere  bus service commenced or terminated and that  section
\n86  dealt with _parking places referred to in section  91(2)\n<\/p>\n
(c)  of the Motor Vehicles Act.\t The fixation of bus  stands
\nwas held to be within section 68 (2) (r) of the Act and\t the
\npower  to  issue the necessary notification was held  to  be
\nimplied in that clause.\n<\/p>\n
Under  section\t76  of\tthe Motor  Vehicles  Act  the  State
\nGovernment or any-authority authorized in this behalf by the
\nState\tGovernment  may\t in  consultation  with\t the   local
\nauthority   having  jurisdiction  in  the  area\t  concerned,
\ndetermine  places at which motor vehicles may  stand  either
\nindefinitely  or  for a specified period of  time,  and\t may
\ndetermine  the places at which public service  vehicles\t may
\nstop  for a longer time than is necessary for the taking  up
\nand  setting  down of passengers.  Unlike section  68  which
\nconfers power on the State Government alone this
\n(1)[1953] S.C.R. 290.\n<\/p>\n
(2) (1963) Supp. (2) S.C.R. 373.\n<\/p>\n
27 9
\nsection\t enables  the  State  Government  to  authorize\t any
\nauthority  to  take  action under it.  As is  clear  from  a
\nreading of section 76, it does not deal with a bus stand  in
\nthe  sense  of\ta place for taking up and  setting  down  of
\npassengers,  which is dealt with under section 68  (2)\t(r).
\nWhile section 258(7)(n) may enable the Municipal Council  to
\nregulate or prohibit the use of any ground under its control
\nit  does  not  enable it to compel any body  to\t use  it  as
\nhalting\t place\tetc. much less to prescribe  that  no  place
\nother  than the one provided by the Municipal Council  shall
\nbe used for setting down and taking up of passengers.\tThat
\ncan be done only under a provision like the one\t  contained
\nin section 68 (2) (r) & (s) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
\nIt is interesting to note that in this case the\t respondents
\nas  well  as  the  Municipal Council  had  stated  that\t the
\nDistrict  Magistrate had declared the Bhopal  Municipal\t Bus
\nStand  as  a bus stand.\t Power to specify  the\tplace  under
\nsection\t 68  (2) (r) & (s) vests in  the  State\t Government.
\nNeither\t party\thas been able to show us that there  is\t any
\npower in the State Government to delegate their power  under
\nthis  section  to the District Magistrate nor have  we\tbeen
\nshown any notification by the District Magistrate specifying
\nthe  Bhopal Municipal Bus Stand as one under the  provisions
\nof  section  68(2)  (r) & (s) of  the  Motor  Vehicles\tAct.
\nApparently both the parties proceeded on a  misapprehension.
\nIf  at all the District Magistrate had taken any  action  it
\ncould  only be under section 76.  But that section does\t not
\nenable him to specify places for setting down or picking  up
\nof passengers as we pointed out earlier.  Therefore, we must
\nhold  that  the Madhya Pradesh High Court was  in  error  in
\nholding bye-law 2 valid.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. M. C. Chagla, appearing for the Municipal Council,\tmade
\nthose four points\n<\/p>\n
\t      1.    There  is no compulsion on any  body  to
\n\t      park  his bus within the municipal limits\t and
\n\t      that  he\tcan park it  outside  the  municipal
\n\t      limits  for  the\tpurpose of  picking  up\t and
\n\t      setting down passengers.\n<\/p>\n
\t      2.    That   if  he  parks  the  bus  in\t the
\n\t      municipal\t bus  stand he\tis  using  municipal
\n\t      land.\n<\/p>\n
\t      3……  That this is with the  permission  of
\n\t      the Municipality.\n<\/p>\n
\t      4.    That  for  this permission a  permit  is
\n\t      issued and a fee is charged.\n<\/p>\n
The first proposition has only to be stated to be  rejected.
\nThe person plying a motor bus for hire cannot exercise\t‘his
\ntrade or profession effectively if he is not allowed to\t set
\ndown or take up passengers within the limits of a town.\t The
\nMunicipal  Council  cannot do indirectly what it  cannot  do
\ndirectly.  It cannot compel buses to go outside the  munici-
\npal limits in order to set down or pick up passengers.\tThis
\nargument  is  as fallacious as the one put  forward  by\t Mr.
\nPhadke on behalf of the respondent that he had a fundamental
\nright  to  use\tthe  Municipal\tbus  stand.   Nobody  has  a
\nfundamental right to use a land belonging to
\n280<\/span>
\nanother without that persons permission or paying for it  if
\nnecessary.   While  the Municipal Council has  no  power  to
\ncompel\tpersons plying motor buses for hue to use  only\t the
\nMunicipal bus stand for the purpose of taking up and setting
\ndown passengers, there can be no objection to its  providing
\na  bus stand for anybody who chooses to use it\t,voluntarily
\nand  to such person being required to pay for such use.\t  In
\nthat  sense propositions 2 and 3 put forward by\t Mr.  Chagla
\nare  unexceptionable.  If for this permission the  formality
\nof the issue of a permit is followed and a fee is charged it
\ncannot\tbe  said  to be objectionable.\t In  that  case\t the
\ncharges\t may  be  such as may be  agreed  upon\tbetween\t the
\nparties,  i.e.\tif the Municipality charges a  certain\trate
\nonly  people  who  are prepared to pay at  that\t rate  would
\nresort to that place.  Nobody can be compelled to go to that
\nplace.\t Such  a  provision is\tpermissible  not  under\t any
\nprovisions  of\tthe Madhya Pradesh  Municipalities  Act\t but
\narises\tout of the right which the Municipal  Council,\tlike
\nthe owner of any other property has, to permit people to use
\nany  property  belonging to it only on\tcertain\t conditions.
\nThe  bylaws compel persons in charge of motor buses  to\t use
\nthe Municipal bus stand, which the Municipality has no power
\nto do.\tConsequently we hold bye-law 2 as not valid and with
\nit  go\tthe other bye-laws.  As we have\t held  bye-laws\t not
\nvalid  we  do  not consider it necessary to  deal  with\t the
\nargument  advanced by Mr. Phadke based on section 6  of\t the
\nMadhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947.
\nIn the result the appeal is dismissed; the appellant win pay
\nthe respondents’ costs.\n<\/p>\n
G.C.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
281<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Municipal Council, Bhopal vs Sindhi Sahiti Multipurpose … on 24 July, 1973 Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 2420, 1974 SCR (1) 274 Author: A Alagiriswami Bench: Alagiriswami, A. PETITIONER: MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BHOPAL Vs. RESPONDENT: SINDHI SAHITI MULTIPURPOSE TRANSPORTCO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. & A DATE OF JUDGMENT24\/07\/1973 BENCH: ALAGIRISWAMI, A. BENCH: ALAGIRISWAMI, A. PALEKAR, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18733","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMunicipal Council, Bhopal vs Sindhi Sahiti Multipurpose ... on 24 July, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-council-bhopal-vs-sindhi-sahiti-multipurpose-on-24-july-1973\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Municipal Council, Bhopal vs Sindhi Sahiti Multipurpose ... on 24 July, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-council-bhopal-vs-sindhi-sahiti-multipurpose-on-24-july-1973\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1973-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-06T17:08:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-council-bhopal-vs-sindhi-sahiti-multipurpose-on-24-july-1973#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-council-bhopal-vs-sindhi-sahiti-multipurpose-on-24-july-1973\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Municipal Council, Bhopal vs Sindhi Sahiti Multipurpose … on 24 July, 1973\",\"datePublished\":\"1973-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-06T17:08:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-council-bhopal-vs-sindhi-sahiti-multipurpose-on-24-july-1973\"},\"wordCount\":2547,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-council-bhopal-vs-sindhi-sahiti-multipurpose-on-24-july-1973#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-council-bhopal-vs-sindhi-sahiti-multipurpose-on-24-july-1973\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-council-bhopal-vs-sindhi-sahiti-multipurpose-on-24-july-1973\",\"name\":\"Municipal Council, Bhopal vs Sindhi Sahiti Multipurpose ... on 24 July, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1973-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-06T17:08:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-council-bhopal-vs-sindhi-sahiti-multipurpose-on-24-july-1973#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-council-bhopal-vs-sindhi-sahiti-multipurpose-on-24-july-1973\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-council-bhopal-vs-sindhi-sahiti-multipurpose-on-24-july-1973#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Municipal Council, Bhopal vs Sindhi Sahiti Multipurpose … on 24 July, 1973\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Municipal Council, Bhopal vs Sindhi Sahiti Multipurpose ... on 24 July, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-council-bhopal-vs-sindhi-sahiti-multipurpose-on-24-july-1973","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Municipal Council, Bhopal vs Sindhi Sahiti Multipurpose ... on 24 July, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-council-bhopal-vs-sindhi-sahiti-multipurpose-on-24-july-1973","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1973-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-06T17:08:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-council-bhopal-vs-sindhi-sahiti-multipurpose-on-24-july-1973#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-council-bhopal-vs-sindhi-sahiti-multipurpose-on-24-july-1973"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Municipal Council, Bhopal vs Sindhi Sahiti Multipurpose … on 24 July, 1973","datePublished":"1973-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-06T17:08:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-council-bhopal-vs-sindhi-sahiti-multipurpose-on-24-july-1973"},"wordCount":2547,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-council-bhopal-vs-sindhi-sahiti-multipurpose-on-24-july-1973#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-council-bhopal-vs-sindhi-sahiti-multipurpose-on-24-july-1973","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-council-bhopal-vs-sindhi-sahiti-multipurpose-on-24-july-1973","name":"Municipal Council, Bhopal vs Sindhi Sahiti Multipurpose ... on 24 July, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1973-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-06T17:08:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-council-bhopal-vs-sindhi-sahiti-multipurpose-on-24-july-1973#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-council-bhopal-vs-sindhi-sahiti-multipurpose-on-24-july-1973"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-council-bhopal-vs-sindhi-sahiti-multipurpose-on-24-july-1973#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Municipal Council, Bhopal vs Sindhi Sahiti Multipurpose … on 24 July, 1973"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18733","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18733"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18733\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18733"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18733"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18733"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}