Judgment :- 1. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation-defendant in O.S. No.133 of 1975 of the Munsiff's Court, Pattambi is the appellant in the second appeal. 2. The suit was filed for recovery of fees for use of the bus stand, provided by the Panchayat. The plaintiff obtained the right to collect the fee for the period from 1-4-1975 to 31-3-1976. A demand made by him for the payment of fee under Ext. A1, notice dated 24-5-1975 was replied by the Corporation on 3-6-1975 under Ext. A2. That did not, however, disclose the definite stand on the part of the defendant either accepting the liability or denying the same. However, as no payment was forthcoming, the suit was instituted. 3. Various contentions were urged on behalf of the defendant. Having regard to the question of law formulated in the second appeal, it is not necessary to refer to all such contentions. Existence of a bus stand at Pattambi was admitted in Para.6 of the written statement. The fact that some of the buses of the defendant used to go to the bus stand and return therefrom was also admitted. However, according to the Corporation, the Panchayat had taken a decision that in relation to such buses no fee was payable by the Corporation. Only one bus used to start from Pattambi bus stand. 4. The trial court framed issues concerning the plaintiff's right to collect fees and the exemption claimed in respect of the vehicles of the defendant-Corporation. The three issues framed are: 'T Whether the plaintiff has any rights to collect Bus Stand Fees from the defendant? 2. Whether the defendant is liable to any bus stand fees in respect of its vehicles? 3. What, if any, is the correct amount due to the plaintiff?" Later an additional issue, issue No. 4, was raised, posing the question whether the plaintiff is competent to sue and whether the suit is maintainable. 5. The right of the plaintiff to sue the defendant and the amount due from the defendant was the subject-matter of issues 3 and 4, On issues I to 4, the findings were in favour of the plaintiff. The amount payable by the defendant was computed at Rs, 2,2251-. Interest was also decreed at the rate of 6% per annum on the principal sum of Rs. 2,200/-. The amount payable by the defendant was computed at Rs, 2,2251-. Interest was also decreed at the rate of 6% per annum on the principal sum of Rs. 2,200/-. Though a contention was raised on the basis of Explanation to R.8 of the Kerala Panchayats (Landing Places, Halting Places and Cart Stand) Rules, 1964, that contention was rejected by that court holding that the Explanation has application to public place or the sides of a public road other than halting places provided for by the Panchayat. It further took the view that the vehicles of the Corporation "have been driven in into the bus stand", and consequently fee was payable by the Corporation. In relation to the period for which the suit related, the trial court found that the right to collect fees had been assigned to the plaintiff and that the provisions of the Act or the Rules did not prohibit the levy and collection of fees from the defendant Corporation. 6. Before the appellate court, four points were formulated and they dealt with, the right of the plaintiff to collect fees, the exemption of the defendant's buses, the plaintiff's right to sue the defendant and the correct amount payable in case there is liability on the part of the defendant 7. Explanation to R.8 was pressed into service before that court too, to contend that no fee was leviable for the buses of the Corporation. However, the court below also took the same view as the one taken by the trial court. Other contentions also were found to be devoid of merit and were accordingly rejected. The question formulated in the second appeal reads: "Whether or not there is any distinction in law between a stopping place, halting place and a place used as bus-stand within the meaning of S.91 of the Kerala Panchayats Act?" 8. At the time of arguments, counsel for the Corporation contended that the defendant did not have the use of any bus stand as that term had been interpreted by the various decisions of this court and consequently they are not liable to pay any fee. Reliance was placed on two decisions State of Kerala v. The Elappara Panchayat, ILR.1978(1) Kerala 431 And Rajagopala Prabhu v. Commissioner, Municipal Council, Irinjalakuda, 1980 KLT. 644 The contentions are, according to me, devoid of merit. S.91 reads: "Public landing places and cart-stands, etc. Reliance was placed on two decisions State of Kerala v. The Elappara Panchayat, ILR.1978(1) Kerala 431 And Rajagopala Prabhu v. Commissioner, Municipal Council, Irinjalakuda, 1980 KLT. 644 The contentions are, according to me, devoid of merit. S.91 reads: "Public landing places and cart-stands, etc. Subject to such rules as may be prescribed, the Panchayat may (a) provide public landing places, halting places and cart-stands (which last expression includes stands for animals and vehicles of any description including motor vehicles) and levy fees for their use; and (b) where any such place or stand has been provided, prohibit the use for the same purpose by any person, within such distance thereof of any public place or the side of any public road as the Panchayat may, subject to the control of the Collector specify; Provided that the previous sanction of the Collector shall be obtained before any stand or halting place for motor vehicles is opened." 9. It may be pointed out at the outset that even if the bus stand provided by the Panchayat does not answer the definition of a bus stand, in accordance with the decisions referred to above that does not lead to the exoneration of the Corporation as regards its liability for the fee. Rules have been framed under the Act, enabling the Panchayat to levy different kinds of fees. The Kerala Panchayats (Landing Places, Halting Places and Cart Stand) Rules, 1964 issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Ss 91 and 92 of the Act are relevant for our purpose Under R.10, fee is leviable for the use of a public halting place, or cart stand. Item 3 referred to in the Rule relates to the fee for every motor vehicle and item 4 to every bus or lorry. Thus, irrespective of the question whether the bus stand will be one which would come within the term cart stand referred to in R.10, the fee would be payable even if the place is only a public baiting place. Counsel for the respondent is correct in submitting that the term'public baiting place' is to be understood in the way in which it has been explained in Ebrahim Sahab v. R. T. Authority, AIR. 1951 Madras 419 at p. 421. Counsel for the respondent is correct in submitting that the term'public baiting place' is to be understood in the way in which it has been explained in Ebrahim Sahab v. R. T. Authority, AIR. 1951 Madras 419 at p. 421. The following observations contained therein are apposite: "There may be places where though no passenger intends to alight and no passenger is actually present to be taken up, yet, the vehicle should stop for some time on account of various reasons which we need not now consider. Such place may be correctly called halting 11 stations 10. The liability thus cast on the defendant cannot, therefore, be said to be contrary to the scheme provided under the Act. The charging section is S.91, particularly clause (a) thereof. It enables the Panchayat to provide a landing place, halting place or a cart stand, and to levy fees for their use. The provision in clause (b) is an ancillary provision intended to facilitate the levy, assessment, and collection of the fee charged under S.91(a). When a place for bus stand is provided by the Panchayat, that Panchayat is further empowered to prohibit the use for the same purpose of any public place or side of any public road, within certain distances as may be notified by the Panchayat. The Panchayat may invoke this provision and notify an unreasonably long distance causing undue hardship to the users of the road. This is safeguarded against by making such notification subject to the control of the Collector. A further provision in that direction is R.7(2) which prohibits a Panchayat from declaring an entire village or an entire Panchayat area as a baiting place or cart stand. The combined effect of these provisions is reflected in R.8 of the Rules referred to above. The rule enables the Panchayat to impose a prohibition of the use of any public place or the sides of any public road for the purpose of public landing place, baiting place or cart stand when there is already a public landing place, halting place or a cart stand, as the case may be. The Explanation occurs in this rule. For the limited purpose of this rule a deeming provision has been engrafted by the Explanation, apparently to relieve the operators from a hardship which otherwise may be caused to them. The Explanation occurs in this rule. For the limited purpose of this rule a deeming provision has been engrafted by the Explanation, apparently to relieve the operators from a hardship which otherwise may be caused to them. Under the Explanation, a vehicle used for the carriage of passengers stopping for less than two minutes at a public place or the side of a public road merely for the purpose of facilitating the passengers to get down, or board, will not come within the purview of R.B. That, however, has no relevance whatever to the levy of fee, for which specific provision has been made under R.10. It may be noted that the imposition of this fee is made after following the formalities contemplated under the Rules, particularly those contained in R.3,4,5, 6 and 9. In other words, it is only after complying with the procedural requirements of R.3 to 6 that the Panchayat notifies the site in respect of a cart stand, halting place and landing place. Again, it is only further satisfying the requirements of R.9 that fees payable for the use of such halting place or cart stand are fixed under R.10. In considering whether any vehicle did have the use of such halting place or cart stand, the Explanation contained in R.8 does not come into play. The fee is payable by every bus or lorry and in respect of such levy and liability the Explanation contained in R.8 has no application. 11. The two decisions referred to by counsel for the appellant have no application to the facts of the case. In the first of the decisions State of Kerala v. The Elappara Panchayat & Others, ILR.1978(1) Kerala 431 what was sought to be charged was the 'non-parking charges. The Panchayat there claimed to have provided a bus stand. The petitioner in that case had not used the bus stand Despite the non-user of the bus stand, the Panchayat attempted a levy of 'non-parking charges'. It was in that context that the question came up for consideration: whether the writ petitioner therein did have the use of such a bus stand. In the present case, as stated earlier, there is no contention that the Panchayat has not provided any bias stand or that the defendant is not availing of the use of such bus stand. It was in that context that the question came up for consideration: whether the writ petitioner therein did have the use of such a bus stand. In the present case, as stated earlier, there is no contention that the Panchayat has not provided any bias stand or that the defendant is not availing of the use of such bus stand. We are not concerned in this second appeal with the computation of the actual amount determined as fee payable under the decrees of the courts below. As noted earlier, the contention has been that the bus stand is not used by all the buses of the Corporation and that some of the buses go to, and proceed from, the bus stand provided by the Panchayat. 12. The decision in Rajagopala Prabhu v. Commissioner, Municipal Council, 1980 KLT. 644, concerned the question whether the provisions are applicable in respect of taxis. Though the notification issued by the Panchayat purported to levy fee for the use of such stand from taxis also, this court pointed out that under the proviso, R.8 did not have any application to a motor vehicle which was not a stage carriage within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. As stated earlier we are not concerned with such a situation in the present case 13. The interpretation placed on the rules by the courts below is correct. On the facts found, fees are payable under R.10 in respect of the buses of the defendant-Corporation which had used the cart stand provided by the Panchayat. It therefore follows that the plaintiff who acquired the right to collect the fees, as per Ext. X1 contract entered into with the Panchayat, is entitled to collect such fees from the defendant-Corporation. There is no dispute regarding the amount for which the courts below have given a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The dispute was only on the liability on the part of the defendant appellant. As I have held above, such a liability does exist on the part of the defendant on a proper interpretation of the statutory provision referred to above. In that view of the matter the second appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed with costs.