JUDGMENT : A.N. Varma, J. 1. Affidavits having been exchanged between the parties, the petition is being disposed of finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners who hold stage carriage permits have questioned the power of the respondent Town Areas to realize Tahbazari from them. They state that their stage carriage permits related to Babarpur Sahail via Dibiapur, Dinwamau. The portion from Babarpur to Dibiapur is a notified route. Accordingly the petitioners are barred from picking up or setting down passengers between Babarpur and Dibiapur. It is stated that in the course of their journey the petitioner's vehicles pass through the town Atsur which falls between Babarpur and Dibiapur. But in view of the corridor restrictions they cannot pick up or set down passengers at Atsur. Their terminus is at Babarpur and the allegation is that Babarpur has not constructed any parking place within that Town Area. So far as Atsur is concerned the petitioner's case is that they merely pass through that Town Area and, in any case, the Atsur Town Area not having provided any parking place nor do they use any public land belonging to the Town Area of Atsur, the said Town Area could not levy and collect Tahbazari from the petitioners. Like-wise, the Babarpur Town Area has imposed Tahbazari with effect from March 15, 1989 and have started realizing Rs. 5/- per vehicle from the petitioners even though it has not provided any parking place. On these allegations, the petitioners contend that inasmuch as the petitioners' vehicles are merely passing and re-passing on the main road or the roadside patri belonging to the State Government or stop to pick up and set down passengers, the respondent Town Areas have no authority to realize Tahbazari from them. 3. The allegations made in the petition have been controverted in the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the Babarpur Town Area (the first respondent). The stand taken by the Babarpur Town Area in its counter affidavit is that it is levying and collecting Tahbazari from the petitioners under a bye-law framed by it under Section 14 (2) (b) of the Town Area Act, 1914. Tahbazari has been imposed for the occupation of public land or public road within the limits of Town Area Such an impost is specifically permissible under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 14. Tahbazari has been imposed for the occupation of public land or public road within the limits of Town Area Such an impost is specifically permissible under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 14. It is asserted in the counter affidavit that the impost is being levied and collected from Stage Carriages only when they occupy public road or public land for parking facilities for picking up and setting down passengers, selling tickets to them, i.e., parking and picking. It is further asserted that the petitioners occupy public road and public land for these purposes. THEy even stop within the Town Area overnight and recommence their business according to the time table. It is only when the Stage Carriages occupy public road or public land within the limits of the Town Area for the purposes of picking, parking and halting overnight that Tahbazari is realized from them. The further case of this Town Area is that it has to make arrangements for lighting at public roads and public land within its limit where buses are parked for the purposes mentioned above. It also provides water facility free of charge at the bus stand known as 'private bus stand'. The Town Area has also to keep the bus stand neat and clean and has to spend considerable amounts for the same. In addition, it has constructed a Pulliya (culvert) in the year 1986 for the facility of the vehicles entering into the Town Area. The private bus stand adjoins the Pulliya and is situate on a public land. The petitioners are also using the road side patri away from the metalled part of the public road for the aforesaid purposes. All brick work, kharanja, etc. away from the metalled part of the road where the petitioners are parking their vehicles, are maintained by the Town Area. The impost is hence clearly valid. 4. Relying on various decisions, Sri L. P. Naithani, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the Town Areas have no power to levy Tahbazari on the vehicles of the petitioners because they have a right to pass and re-pass and even stop to pick up and set down passengers on the public road which belongs to the State Government. Such a right it is urged has been recognized by the Supreme Court as well as this Court in numerous decisions. Such a right it is urged has been recognized by the Supreme Court as well as this Court in numerous decisions. In order to appreciate the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it will be convenient to have a look at the relevant provisions on which the respondent Town Area of Babarpur is relying in support of its claim to levy the impost. Section 14 (2) (b) of the Town Area Act, 1914, provides ; "The Committee may also impose the following taxes and fee : (a) ........................ (b) Tahbazari leviable for the use of public land or public roads." 5. Section 2 (7) of the said Act defines 'public road' as 'public road means any road, street, thorough fare, passage or place over which the public have a right of way.' It will thus immediataly be seen that Town Area has a right to impose Tahbazari even in respect of public roads or public street or any place over which the public have a right of way. Merely because, there fore, the petitioners have a right of way over a public road does not take away the power and authority of the Town Area to realize Tahbazari from them provided, of course, they use the public land or public road. Tahbazari thus can be realized from vendors occupying a public road or public street for the sale of their merchandise because they are using a public street or a public road. As mentioned above, the impost is for the occupation of public road and public land. The bye-law under challenge provides for the levy of Tahbazari only where the persons from whom it is realized are occupying a public road within the limits of respondent Town Area. 6. The case of the first respondent is precisely this. It asserts that it is realizing Tahbazari from the petitioners only when their vehicles are occupying public land or public road for picking up or setting down passengers, booking passengers and even staying overnight. The further case of the said respondent is that the petitioners are parking their vehicles for the aforesaid purposes at the bus stand being maintained by it. The further case of the said respondent is that the petitioners are parking their vehicles for the aforesaid purposes at the bus stand being maintained by it. It is providing lighting facility on public roads and at this stand as well as supplying free water to the passengers and also keeping the bus stand neat and clean for the protection of the health and hygiene of the passengers waiting to board the buses. The bye-law imposing the levy is thus squarely covered by Section 14 (2) (b) of the Act. In the case of Om Prakash v. Municipal Board Debai, Bulandshahr, 1987 (1) UPLBEC 562, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners themselves this Court while striking, down the impugned bye-law hastened to clarify the position with regard to the right of the Local Bodies to realize Tahbazari for the use of its land in the following words : "We wish to clarify at this place that the Board has a right to charge for the use of its land by arriving at agreements or otherwise from bus operators." 7. In that case the bye-law was struck down solely on the ground that Tahbazari was being levied at the point of entry into the municipal limits and that the vehicles were merely passing and re-passing through the Town Area. The Bench placed reliance on the decision of Municipal Council, Bhopal v. Sindhi Sahiti Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society Ltd., AIR 1973 SC 2420 in support of its conclusion "Anyone who parks the bus on the land belonging to the Board, can charge for its use like any other owner. IN our case the Board says that a regular bus stand has been provided, but assuming that not to be so, since disputed, the charge can be still made for the use and occupation of land belonging to the Board". These observations fully apply to the present case. The impugned Tahbazari is being levied because the petitioners use and occupy public road and public land maintained by the Town Area. They park their vehicles and do business of selling tickets at the bus stand and on the road side patri. They even park their vehicles and stay overnight. 8. These acts clearly attract the application of the impost. The impugned Tahbazari is being levied because the petitioners use and occupy public road and public land maintained by the Town Area. They park their vehicles and do business of selling tickets at the bus stand and on the road side patri. They even park their vehicles and stay overnight. 8. These acts clearly attract the application of the impost. In the case of Town Area, Bhogaon v. KDGC (P) Ltd., Ghaziabad, 1974 ALJ 231, the Bench examined the true character of the impost called Tahbazari. After referring to various texts and legal dictionaries, the Bench held that Tahbazari is an impost which is related to the occupation of some ground in a market or public place for the purpose of carrying on some trade and partakes the nature of ground rent. The respondent Town Area claims that in substance it is doing no more than charging rent for the occupation of the public road or public land within its limits. The imposition of the Tahbazari by the first respondent is thus clearly supported by law. We may now briefly comment on the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention. The first decision cited was the case of Abid Aii v. Town Area Committee, Alapur, 1984 ALJ 1202. The decision is clearly distinguishable. In that case the respondent Town Area was restrained from realizing Tahbazari from the permit-holders merely because the vehicles were passing or re-passing through the streets maintained by the Town Area. In the present case, the respondent Town Area is not levying Tahbazari on the petitioners merely because their vehicles are passing and re-passing through the public road or public land within its limits but on the ground that the vehicles come and occupy the bus stand or public road not only for setting down and picking up passengers but also for selling tickets. They park their vehicles and stay overnight in connection with their business. Such acts clearly amount to using and occupying public road or public land sufficient to attract the levy of; Tahbazari. 9. The next case cited by the learned counsel is Kamaljeet Singh v. The Municipal Board, Pilkhwa, AIR 1987 SC 56 . This decision again is distinguishable. They park their vehicles and stay overnight in connection with their business. Such acts clearly amount to using and occupying public road or public land sufficient to attract the levy of; Tahbazari. 9. The next case cited by the learned counsel is Kamaljeet Singh v. The Municipal Board, Pilkhwa, AIR 1987 SC 56 . This decision again is distinguishable. The impost under challenge m that case was toll tax and the concerned municipal board was levying and collecting the same merely upon the entry of the vehicles into its limits in the purported exercise of powers under Section 128 (1) (vii) of the t). P. Municipalities Act. In the present case, in the first place, the impost in question is not a toll tax but Tahbazari and, secondly, it is being levied not merely on the ground that the vehicles enter into the limits of the respondent Town Area but on the ground that they occupy and use public road and public land for the purposes mentioned above, The taxable event, namely, occupation of the public land or public road by these vehicles is hence present in the instant case. 10. The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that the impost under challenge is valid and in view of what has been asserted in the counter affidavit the correctness of which we have no reason to doubt, it cannot be said that the respondent Town Area is exercising its right to realize the Tahbazari in question contrary to law. We cannot hence restrain the said Town Area from realizing the Tahbazari. If, however, the contesting respondent Town Area Babarpur, levies Tahbazari on the petitioners merely on the ground that they are passing or re-passing through the public road or public land within the limits of the said Town Area without stopping to occupy any part of the public land or public road for doing their business, the petitioners can appeal under the Town Area Act or Rules itself or by way of a representation addressed to the Town Area as provided in the impugned bye-laws themselves or even by way of a civil Suit. The petitioners are, however, entitled to succeed as against Town Area Atsur, Etawah, the second respondent. The petitioners are, however, entitled to succeed as against Town Area Atsur, Etawah, the second respondent. The assertions of the petitioners that their vehicles merely pass through the Town Area Atsur and that they do not park with their vehicles within their limits as Indeed they cannot do so legally in view of the corridor restrictions nor that the said Town Area has provided any parking place for the vehicles have gone unchallenged. The petitioners are hence entitled to the relief claimed against the second respondent. 11. In the result, the petition succeeds in part and is allowed as against the second respondent. The second respondent is restrained from realizing Tahbazari from the vehicles of the petitioners merely on the ground that their vehicles are passing or re-passing through that Town Area. The petition is, however, dismissed against as the first respondent. The parties shall bear their own costs. Petition partly allowed.