Modi J. - (1.) THIS is a writ application by seven bus operators on the Dholpur-Baseri and Dholpur-Sar-Muthra routes, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, and raises the question of the legality of certain taxes imposed by the Bari Municipality in respect of the motor vehicles passing through it.
(2.) THE case of the petitioners, briefly put, is that the aforesaid municipality has framed certain bye-laws which are called 'bye-laws for the Regulation of Motor Stands within the limits of the Bari Municipality, 1955' whereunder by bye-law (6), every motor vehicle entering within the limits of this municipality is required to pay what is called 'adda fee' in accordance with schedule I appended to the bye-laws, and by other bye-laws being Nos. (9), (10) and (11) the driver of every motor vehicle is required as soon as he wishes to enter the limits of this municipality to put down his signature in a register in the office of the municipality and then and there pay a tax which is called trip-tax in accordance with schedule II appended to the bye-laws, and it is further provided that no motor vehicle shall be entitled to enter the limits of the municipality unless this tax is paid. The contention of the petitioners is that these taxes are illegal and void being in direct contravention of sec. 21 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 (No. XI of 1951) (hereinafter called the Act of 1951 ). This application is opposed by the Municipal Board, Bari, as well as the State of Rajasthan, who have been impleaded as respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in it. It appeared from the replies filed on behalf of the opposite parties in the first instance that the so-called trip-tax had been abolished altogether by a subsequent resolution of the municipal board itself while the Adda fees had been enhanced, the new scale being fixed at a lump-sum figure of Rs. 84/- per year. As the position was rather obscure, we called upon the learned Assistant Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State to let us know the precise position in the matter. By an affidavit which has since been filed, the position that emerges is that although the Municipal Board had passed a resolution proposing the abolition of the trip-tax and the enhancement of the Adda fees; that proposal has not been sanctioned by the State Government. The resultant position, therefore, is that the Adda fees and the trip-tax as originally proposed by this municipality and sanctioned by the Government still stand. According to this arrangement, a fee of Rs. 60/- per annum is required to be paid as Adda fees by all kinds of motor vehicles passing through the limits of this municipality. As for the trip-tax, the scale is -/3/- annas per trip for every passenger bus and rupee 1/- per trip for a truck and -/4/- annas per trip for every other vehicle. ' ¦ * It is contended that Adda fee is a sort of rent for the municipal land used by buses and trucks for stoppage, and, therefore, no exception can be taken to it and so also to the trip-tax which is not hit by the Act of 1951. The principal question for consideration emerging out of the facts set out above is whether the impositions in question are in contravention of sec. 21 of the Act of 1951. This section reads as follows : - "no toll or tax to be levied by local bodies: - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law for the time being in force in any part of Rajasthan, it shall not be lawful for any local authority to levy any tax or toll in respect of any motor vehicle. " The question of the, correct interpretation of this section arose before a learned single Judge in Jethmal vs. Heeralal (1 ). The facts of that case were that the Municipal Board, Ladnun, had by certain bye-laws imposed octroi on all cars imported within the limits of that municipality. One Heera Lal had imported a certain car and was called upon to pay octroi on it but he declined to do so, and the question was raised that the imposition of the octroi was in violation of sec. 21 of the Act of 1951. It was held by the learned single Judge that under clause (iv) of sec. 59 of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951 (No. XXIII of 1951), it was open to a municipality to levy an octroi on animals or goods or both brought within the octroi limits for consumption or use therein, but this provision which was contained in a general Act relating to the establishment and administration of municipalities must yield to the provisions of the Act of 1951 which was a special Act applicable to motor vehicles only, and in coming to this conclusion, the learned single Judge placed his reliance on the well-known principle of interpretation of statutes that where there was a special Act as also a general Act dealing with the same matter, a general Act must yield to the Special Act. We have no hesitation in saying that the learned Judge was correct in the conclusion to which he came, and that the principle of that decision applies to the present case also. The difference between the aforesaid case and the case we have before us is that we are not concerned here with clause (iv) of sec. 59 but with clause (iii) thereof. Under the last-mentioned clause, a municipality may levy a toll on vehicles entering its limits which may not have been taxable under clause (ii) whereunder the municipality is authorised to levy a tax on all or any vehicles or animals, used for riding, draught, or burden kept within its limits for use. If the matter rested for decision merely under the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, we should have had little difficulty in holding that the municipality was within its rights in levying the trip tax or perhaps the Adda fees with respect to motor vehicles entering its limits. There is, however, the Act of 1951 which specially governs the matter of taxation on motor vehicles. This Act, as its preamble shows has been enacted to provide for the imposition of tax on motor vehicles throughout Rajasthan. By Section 4 of the Act, it has been laid down, broadly speaking, that no motor vehicle shall be used in any public place or kept for use in Rajasthan unless the owner thereof has paid in respect of it, a tax at the appropriate rate specified in the schedules to this Act within the prescribed time, and it is further provided that ordinarily, this tax shall be payable annually notwithstanding that the motor vehicle may from time to time cease to be used. It is obvious that the tax contemplated by sec. 4 is for the use or keeping for use of a motor vehicle in any public place anywhere in the State of Rajasthan and is not confined to any local area. Then comes sec. 21 which we have already set out above. This section clearly places a ban on any local authority so that it cannot levy any tax or toll in respect of any motor vehicle which under sec. 4 is used in any public place or is kept for use in Rajasthan, and according to the opening words of this section, this ban must hold good "notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law for the time being in force in any part of Rajasthan. " These are words of the widest amplitude and, in our opinion, clearly cover the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act of 1951 or for that matter any other law whatever in so far as it relates to motor vehicles which are being used or kept for use in Rajasthan. We may also point out that the word 'tax' or 'toll' as used in sec. 21 cannot be restricted in its meaning to a tax imposed under the Act of 1951 but the expression is wide enough, and has been specifically employed to refer to a tax or toll which may be levied by any local authority in respect of motor vehicles. For indeed, it would be a contradiction in terms to interpret the expression "tax or toll levied by any local authority in respect of a motor vehicle" as a tax or toll imposed under the Act we are considering. Any tax or toll imposed by a local authority on a motor vehicle would be an imposition not under this Act but under the appropriate Act governing the functions, duties and powers of the local authority. The true meaning therefore, of sec. 21 is that a local authority has been prohibited thereunder from levying any tax or toll in respect of a motor vehicle irrespective of any other laws or rules authorising it to do so. We hold accordingly. That being the correct position in law, the only other question which we are called upon to decide here is whether the tax or fees which are challenged before us fall within the mischief of sec. 21 of the Act of 1951. These two impositions are (1) Adda fee and (2) trip-tax. The Adda fee, it is prescribed by the bye-laws, must be paid by every motor vehicle (See bye-law 6 ). We can only understand this bye-law to mean that the fee has to be paid by every motor vehicle entering the limits of the municipality. The contention that this fee is a rent for municipal land does not seem to us to be correct. For one thing, the bye-laws do not say so. For another, it is a question whether it is the function of the municipality to tax the halting or parking places for motor vehicles entering its limits. For, so far as we are at present advised, we think that this is a function which ordinarily rests with the transport authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act (No. 4) of 1939; (See sec. 76 and rule 134 of the Rules made under that Act- ). We are, therefore, disposed to think that this imposition is not in the nature of any rent for the land occupied but is a tax in respect of a motor vehicle entering the limits of the municipality. Turning next to the trip-tax, the position hardly admits of any doubt that it is some thing in the nature of a toll for every motor vehicle making a trip to or through this municipality. The learned Assistant Government Advocate has made no endeavour before us to defend this, imposition as being outside the purview of sec. 21 of the Act of 1951. We are definitely of the opinion that the trip-tax is nothing but a tax or toll in respect of any such vehicle within the meaning of the said Act.
(3.) FOR the reasons mentioned above, we have come to the conclusion that both the Adda fee as welt as the trip-tax are illegal and cannot be allowed to be charged by this municipality as being in direct violation of the provisions of sec. 21 of the Act of 1951. The petitioners have also made a prayer for refund for the amount of the taxes in question which they have been paying for some time before the municipality was prohibited from charging the same by an interim order of this Court. We are not prepared to allow this prayer and would leave the petitioners to seek their remedy in this connection from competent courts of law. The result is that we partly allow this application and hold the Adda fee and the trip-tax levied by the municipality of Bari on motor vehicles as illegal and void. Haying regard to all the circumstances of the case, we would leave the parties to bear their own costs in this Court. . ;