Decided on September 24,1954



- (1.) The question in this Second Appeal is whether a suit for the collection of cartstand fees would lie in a Civil Court.( The facts are simple. The Gurazala Panchayat Board has provided a stand for the stopping of buses and lorries. The right to collect fees from the owners of the said vehicles was auctioned. The plaintiff was the highest bidder for the years 1946-47 and 1947-48 and he thus became entitled to collect fees from the buses and lorries stopping in the cart-stand. The defendant, who was plying one lorry and six buses, used the cart-stand during that period. The suit was filed for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 482-8-0 as the fees due from him.(3) The defendant, inter alia, contended that the suit was not maintainable as the Madras Local Boards Act (Act XIV of 1920) provided the machinery for the collection of such fees. Both the courts negatived the said contention. Hence the appeal.(4) The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that S. 186 provides the machinery for collection of cart-stand fees, that the Panchayat Board or the person authorised by it to collect the same should proceed to collect the said fees only under the provisions of that section and that no separate suit would lie.(5) It is a well-established principle of law that a Civil Courts jurisdiction is not ousted unless a particular statute expressly or by necessary implication excluded it. The question, therefore is whether the provisions of the Madras Local Boards Act providing for public cart-stands and prescribing the manner of collection of fees has ousted the jurisdiction of a Civil Court in that respect. The relevant provisions of the Act read : "S. 184 (1) The Panchayat may construct or provide and maintain public landing places, halting places and cart-stands and may levy fees for the use of the same. (1) A : The Panchayat may (a) place the collection of any such fees under the management of such persons as may appear to it proper or (b) farm out the collection of any such fees for any periods, not exceeding three years, at a time and on such terms and conditions as it may think fit. S. 186 (1) : If the fee leviable under sub-s. (1) of S. 184 in respect of a vehicle or animal is not paid on demand, the person duly authorised to collect the same may seize such vehicle or animal, or any part of its burden and detain the same in his custody.
(2.) If such fee together with the expenss occasioned by such seizure and detention remains unpaid for twelve hours, the person duly authorised as aforesaid shall forthwith send the vehicle .............. animal or other property seized as aforesaid to the nearest public officer empowered to sell destrained property under the Madras Rent and Revenue Sales Act. 1839.
(3.) Such Officer shall forthwith give notice to the owner of the property seized, or if the owner is not known or is not resident in the neighbourhood, to the person who was in charge of the said property at the time when it was seized, and if he is not found, publish by beat of drum that, after the expiration of two days exclusive of Sunday from the date of service or after the said publication of such notice, he will sell the property by auction at a place to be specified in the notice.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.