Case Note & Summary
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenged a pay and park scheme introduced by the Pune Cantonment Board on Mahatma Gandhi Road, Pune. The petitioners, four businessmen with shops on MG Road, contended that the Board lacked statutory authority to levy parking fees and that the scheme violated their fundamental right to trade under Article 19(1)(g). The scheme was introduced in 1997 to regulate traffic and parking on the busy street. The Board, constituted under the Cantonment Act, 1924, vested with control over the road, had earlier taken measures like removing hawkers and widening the road. The petitioners protested but the Board proceeded, leading to the filing of the petition. Before the court, the petitioners argued that there was no specific provision in the Act or bye-laws empowering fee levy, and that bye-law 43 only permitted regulation, not charging fees. They relied on Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Noshir Shapurji Dhabhar, where a similar scheme was struck down for want of statutory power. The Board countered that Sections 282(4) and 284 of the Act, along with bye-law 43 and Rule 46 of the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937, provided ample authority. The bye-law expressly allowed regulation of traffic by public notice, and Rule 46 provided for maintenance of registers for motor vehicle parking licences. The court examined the scope of statutory powers and applied the principle that a statutory body can do only what is expressly or impliedly authorised, but that such authority includes everything incidental or consequential. It found that regulation of traffic inherently includes regulating standing and parking of vehicles, and that imposing a fee is a reasonable incidental measure. The court distinguished the Noshir Shapurji Dhabhar case on the ground that the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act had no such provision, whereas here the bye-law and rules provided clear authority. It further held that the scheme did not violate Article 19(1)(g) because no person has a fundamental right to an unregulated parking space on a public street; the scheme was a reasonable measure to fairly distribute limited parking and prevent monopolistic use. The court also made observations on shopkeepers' parking needs, suggesting that up to 25% of parking space could be reserved for them on concessional terms, but emphasized that they cannot claim permanent reservation. The petition was dismissed, and the pay and park scheme was upheld as legal and valid.
Headnote
A) Cantonment Law - Regulatory Powers - Power to Regulate Traffic Includes Power to Levy Parking Fees - Cantonment Act, 1924, Sections 282(4), 284; Poona Cantonment Bye-laws, Bye-law 43; Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937, Rule 46 - The pay and park scheme was introduced under bye-law 43 which permits regulation of traffic by public notice. The scheme is a measure to regulate indiscriminate parking and reduce congestion. The power to levy parking fees is incidental to the power to regulate traffic. Held that the scheme is intra vires and valid (Paras 5, 7). B) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Pay and Park Scheme Not Violative of Article 19(1)(g) - Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(g) - The petitioners' right to trade does not extend to a right to unrestricted parking on public streets. The scheme is a reasonable restriction to ensure fair sharing of limited parking space and prevent monopolistic use. Held no violation of fundamental rights (Paras 6, 7). C) Interpretation of Statutes - Implied Powers Doctrine - Statutory Bodies May Exercise Incidental Powers - Cantonment Act, 1924 - The doctrine of ultra vires applies strictly, but statutory powers include everything fairly incidental or consequential. The Board's power to regulate traffic under bye-law 43 includes levying parking fees. Held the scheme is lawful (Para 5). D) Precedent - Distinguishing Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Case - Pay and Park Scheme Valid When Specific Authority Exists - Cantonment Act, 1924; Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Noshir Shapurji Dhabhar, 1990 Mh.L.J.1173 - The case relied upon by petitioners was distinguished as that Act lacked a provision for parking fees; whereas here bye-law 43 and Rule 46 provide explicit authority (Para 7). E) Municipal Law - Parking Regulation and Shopkeepers' Rights - No Vested Right to Monopolize Public Parking - Cantonment Act, 1924 - Shopkeepers cannot claim permanent reservation; they may be given concessions up to 25% reserved parking on concessional terms. The scheme already provides monthly parking concessions (Paras 6, 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Cantonment Board has the power/authority to introduce and implement a 'pay and park' scheme for parking of vehicles on MG Road under the Cantonment Act, 1924 and the bye-laws framed thereunder, and whether such scheme is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The pay and park scheme introduced by the Cantonment Board on MG Road is held to be legal and within the Board's powers under the Cantonment Act, 1924, the bye-laws and rules framed thereunder. The scheme does not violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Statutory bodies possess only powers expressly or impliedly conferred by the legislature
- power to regulate traffic includes incidental power to levy parking fees
- pay and park scheme is a valid regulatory measure
- no one can claim parking space on public streets as of right
- shopkeepers have no fundamental right to unregulated parking
- reservation of parking for shopkeepers may be allowed up to 25% on concessional basis
