JUDGMENT 1. - Mr. M. D. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to (1) Lakshman v. State of M. P. (A.I.R. 1983 SC 656), and has submitted that there is violation of Articles 14, 19 and 301 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), no tax or toll can be levied by the Municipality.Section 21 of the Act runs as follows : "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." 2. Petitioner No. 1 is Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. It plies buses on the inter-state routes of the Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, the bus stand is declared by the R. T. A. after hearing the parties interested. It is an admitted position that as far as the town of Nimbaheda is concerned, no bus stand has been declared so far under the erosion's of M. V. A. The property vesting in the municipality is used for the purpose of bus stand as well as for the purpose of other allied matters. There cannot be two opinion that the municipality cannot realise toll or tax as defined in Section 21 of the Act. In (2) Raghuvar Dayal v. M B. Bari (I. L. R. (1960) 10 Rajasthan 895), the Adda fee and the provisions relating to the trip tax came up for consideration before the Division Bench. The Adda fee was prescribed by bye-laws and every motor vehicle entering within the limits of the Municipality was required to pay the Adda fees. In was observed by the Division Bench as follows : "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." 3. In was observed by the Division Bench as follows : "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." 3. The question before me is whether it is a function of the municipality to provide halting or parking places for motor vehicles entering its limits, for, so far as I am advised by the learned counsel for the parties, I think that this is a function which ordinarily rests with the transport authorities under Motor Vehicles Act 1939. Section 75 of the Act read with Rule 134 of the Motor Vehicles Rules are clear on this point. It is also an admitted position that the trip tax falls within the purview of the toll. The municipality is not competent to impose any toll or tax in violation of the provisions of Section 21 of the Act but at the same time, the municipality can charge the fee for halting or parking places for motor vehicles, if its personal property is used for the same. It is not the function of the Municipality to provide the halting piece and to provide the amenities necessary for the same. The buses going from one State to another, halts for whole of the night and may be for hours together and this is the primary function of the transport authorities if any to provide the halting or parking places. If the municipality provides halting places which is not its function and which the petitioner cannot claim as of right from the municipality then the Municipality is entitled to ask the petitioner to make the payment by way of fees for halting purposes. The trip has no relevancy whatsoever with the charges or fees realised on account of the use or occupation of parking or halting places. The vehicle may enter within the municipal limits and pass through the roads and the lift to the passengers. The municipality cannot put any restriction on the free movement and cannot charge any tax or toll an account of the use of the roads but at the same time, the municipality cannot be asked to remain silent and to allow the petitioner to use its personal property for halting or parking purposes. The municipality cannot put any restriction on the free movement and cannot charge any tax or toll an account of the use of the roads but at the same time, the municipality cannot be asked to remain silent and to allow the petitioner to use its personal property for halting or parking purposes. If the petitioner wants parking or halting place, it may have its own garage where it can keep its vehicle for the purpose of safe custody. If the personal property of the municipality is used by the petitioner for parking or halting purposes without its permission, then the Municipality is entitled to ask the petitioner not to use the property for halting or parking purposes. If the petitioner chooses to use the personal property of Municipal Board, then the Municipal will have the right either to deny the petitioner to use its personal property or to ask the petitioner to pay fees as agreed upon by the parties for the use or occupation of personal property of the Municipal Board. 4. The use of municipal roads cannot be prohibited by the municipality and every vehicle-holder can use the road without payment of any toll, tax fee whatsoever. The Stage Carriage Permit Holder stands on the same footing and they can use road further for the purpose of plying. They can also have a short stoppage for the purpose of picking up the passengers. The stoppage for the purpose of picking up the passengers will not Fall within the purview of halting or parking, and the municipality shall not be entitled to ask for any fees whatsoever on that account. 5. Halting or parking is for a longer period and generally it exceeds a period of more than half an hour at the bus stand if the motor vehicles stop, may he for an hour or half for the purpose of picking up the passengers or for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the travelling public to refresh themselves, will not fall within the purview of halting or parking, and the municipality shall not be entitled to charge any fees on account of use of the municipal road. The Municipality cannot charge any fees in the name of toll or tax, as it is forbidden under Section 2. of the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. The Municipality cannot charge any fees in the name of toll or tax, as it is forbidden under Section 2. of the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. It is admitted position that technically, there is no bus stand in the municipal area of Nirnbaheda municipal town. Under Section 75 of the Motor Vehicles Act and rule 134 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, a bus stand has to be declared, even law provides for the declaration of the bus stand. Technically, we cannot call any place as bus stand, unless it is declared under the law. If any bus is passing through the municipal road and is in transit, it can use the road for purpose of picking up passengers or for any other purpose referred to above without payment of the fees. 7. However, the position will be different, if Nimbahera is a terminal or terminus of the route and the vehicle is kept there on the municipal land for hours together. In these circumstances, the municipality can compel the permit holders of the vehicle, may be a stage carriage permit holder, contract permit holder or a public carriar holder or private carrier holder not to use this land for halting or parking purposes. It is the duty of every transport owner or the permit holders to arrange at the place of terminus halting or parking place in the shape of garage or otherwise at their own cost. If the municipality provides the facility which does not fall within the perview of its functions and if the owner of the vehicle accepts the facility voluntarily and uses the personal land of municipality, which is not a regular road for the purpose of halting, then the municipality has a right to deny the facilities so provided, unless the person plying the vehicle enters into a contract on the terms and conditions laid down by the municipality for the payment of fees on account of use and occupation of the personal property of the municipality, which does not fall within the purview of route/road. We will have to differentiate between the two, namely, use of municipal road and use of municipal land. The free movement of any motor vehicle is a must and municipality has no right whatsoever to realise the fee, as it fall, within the purview of toll or tax. 8. Mr. We will have to differentiate between the two, namely, use of municipal road and use of municipal land. The free movement of any motor vehicle is a must and municipality has no right whatsoever to realise the fee, as it fall, within the purview of toll or tax. 8. Mr. M.D. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Government is recurred to declare the bus stand for halting or parking motor vehicles. Assuming that the submissions made by Mr. Purohit are correct, even then it is an admitted position that no halting or parking place has been declared by the Regional Transport Authority. Here, if the Regional Transport has failed to provide any halting or parking place as, submitted by Mr. Purohit, it is not a fault of the municipality, but it is the functional duty if any of the RTA to provide halting or parking place for the vehicles. If the municipality conies forward and imposes a condition that any one who wants to use/occupy the municipal land for halting or parking purpose, can use it on the payment of fees After entering into a contract, there is nothing wrong in it. Neither the Government nor the law imposes a duty on the municipality to provide the parking or halting facility. If the submissions made by Mr. Purohit are taken on its face value, even then petitioner cannot ask the municipality to provide the place for halting or pat king. The petitioner should arrange it on his own cost and municipality cannot compel the petitioner to use its land for the purpose of halting or parking. At the same time if the petitioner wants to use the land of the municipality for halting or parking purpose, the municipality can impose a condition and can charge the fee in terms of contractual obigation. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the same amount has not been charged by the municipality from the Rs. RSRTC Mr. Bhandari has invited my attention to Annexute-1, whereby the State Government has directed the Transport Authority also to make the payments. Orders passed by the State Government cannot direct that the payment should be made as per trip. There no question of discrimination, as suggested by Mr. Purohit. Mr. RSRTC Mr. Bhandari has invited my attention to Annexute-1, whereby the State Government has directed the Transport Authority also to make the payments. Orders passed by the State Government cannot direct that the payment should be made as per trip. There no question of discrimination, as suggested by Mr. Purohit. Mr. Purohit invited my attention to para 3 of the report in Lakshman's case (1), which is as follows : "3. We are unable to see any rational basis for the distinction made between owners of cattle belonging to Madhya Pradesh and owners of cattle belonging to other States (described as owners of 'foreign cattle'). Forests of Madhya Pradesh are not grazie grounds reserved for cattle belonging to residents of Madhya Pradesh only, even as the owns and villages of Madhya Pradesh cannot be reserved for the residence of the original residents of Madhya Pradesh only. Accidents of birth and geography cannot furnish the credentials for such discrimination and authority prejudicial treatment in matters of this nature. We do not say that geographical classification is never permissible. For example, a preference given by a State to its residents in the matter of admission to educational institutions maintained by the State from its revenues may be well justified. But we are unable to see any such justification for the levy of virtually penal grazing charges in the case of owners of cattle belonging to other State attempt at justification is that the influx 'foreign cattle' is resulting in the destruction of the forest wealth of the State. It is difficult to understand this justification If cattle belonging to residents of Madhya Pradesh are allowed to graze will it not lead to the same damage as by the cattle belonging to persons of other States ? Surely, it cannot be that the Madhya Pradesh cattle are less destructive than the cattle belonging to persons of other States. Further if the object was to prevent all cattle from grazing in protected forests, such grazing could have been banned as in the case of reserved forests Even in the case of the municipality shall be entitled to charge only the fees for the use and occupation of its land for halting and parking places but shall not be entitled to charge any toll or tax, as defined in Section 21 of the Act. 10. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, I direct that the municipality shall not realise any amount on account of toll or tax from the petitioner. Use of municipal road for the purpose of picking up the passengers and for short stoppage is permissible without the payment of any fee. 11. However, the municipality will be at liberty to charge any amount of fees which it wanted to charge on the basis of contractual obligation from the petitioner and other equally situated persons by way of fees for using its personal property for the purpose of halting or parking. This will be a contractual obligation, and the petitioner will be at liberty not to use the municipal land for halting or parking places They can have their alternative arrangements. In that case, the municipality will not compel the petitioner to make any payment on account of fee for halting or parking purposes. If the petitioner used the personal property of the municipality for the purpose of halting or parking, it will amount to a contractual obligation and the petitioner will be liable to pay the fee on the terms and conditions laid down by the municipality. The petitioner or any person uses the property of the municipality under a contractual obligation, will not pay the fee to the municipality for the purpose of a property of the municipality for parking or halting purposes. Municipality cannot be compelled to provide halting or parking places when it is not a functional duty at all and it will not be justified to ask the municipality to perform the duty, which is not cast upon it and if the municipality provides the facilities, then it is for the other party to consider whether to accept the facilities so provided and if the other party accepts the facilities so provided, then the other party is required to pay the amount of fees on contractual basis and is also liable to fulfil the conditions laid down by the municipality for the said purpose. 12. In the result, the writ petition is partly accepted, and the order (Annexure 1) is set aside to the extent that the vehicle coming for the purpose of picking up the passengers shall not be liable to pay Re. 1/- per trip, as provided in Annexure 1. 12. In the result, the writ petition is partly accepted, and the order (Annexure 1) is set aside to the extent that the vehicle coming for the purpose of picking up the passengers shall not be liable to pay Re. 1/- per trip, as provided in Annexure 1. Similarly, Annexure 2 is partly set aside and the fee per trip from the buses coming with the Municipal area shall not be realised by the municipality. However, it is made clear that the municipality shall be entitled to charge halting or parking fee, as discussed above. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. *******