AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok Bhushan, Actg. C.J.
This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 10th November 2014 in W.P. (C) No. 15647/2014. Petitioners are theater owners and they are running two theaters. They had filed the Writ Petition challenging the notice issued by the Municipality asking the petitioners to stop the collection of parking fees from the viewers of cinema and further directing them to take licence as per the Provisions of the Municipalities Act.
Learned Single Judge referring to Sec. 475 of the Kerala Municipality Act, dismissed the Writ Petition upholding the proceedings of the Municipality and observed that the petitioners may apply for and obtain the necessary licence.
The learned counsel for the appellants, in support of the Writ Appeal contended that the petitioners/theater owners is not running any public car stand and the cars are parked by the viewers who come to watch the cinema, for which neither any licence is required nor the Municipality can raise any objection. He also submits that Car stand is not open for public and it is only for the cinema viewers and hence, it need not be treated as a private car stand. He further submits that Sec. 475 referred to only for private cart stand and the provision is not applicable with regard to the car stand.
We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the records.
Sub Sec. 5 of Section 475 provides that Municipality may levy for every licence granted under Sec. 475, a fee not exceeding Rs. 3000/- per annum. Further Sub Sec. 1 of Sec. 475 provides that that no person shall open a new private cart stand or continue to keep open a private cart stand without a licence from the Municipality.
Section 475 (1) and (5) are quoted as below:
Sec. 475 (1). No person shall open a new private cart stand or continue to keep open a private cart stand without a licence from the Municipality.
(5) The Municipality may levy for every licence granted under this Section a fee not exceeding three thousand rupees per annum.
The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the said provision is applicable only to the cart stand.
The cart stand has to be read as car stand also in the present day. Learned counsel for the Municipality referred to Explanation to Sec. 472, which explains the cart stand in the following manner:-
"Explanation:- A cart stand shall, for the purposes of this Act, include a bus stand, taxi stand, autorickshaw stand, lorry stand and stand for other vehicles and for animals" shall be substituted".
Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be sustainable. The provision is applicable to private car stand as well. Thus any person, who runs a private car stand is obliged to take licence. The submission of the appellants that since the car stand is only used by cinema viewers, it is excluded from taking licence, cannot be accepted. The provision is general in nature and applies to every private car stand. There is no challenge regarding the provision in the Writ petition, hence, the petitioner is obliged to take licence for running a private car stand. Thus, we do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, with the observation that it is open for the appellants to seek appropriate licence under Sec. 475 of the Kerala Municipality Act, this Writ Appeal is dismissed.