( 1 ) WE have heard Sri W. H. Khan, learned Advocate for the writ petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 and Sri A. K. Goel, learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5, Zila Panchayat and Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Gautam Budh Nagar. ( 2 ) PETITIONER No. 1 is the holder of mining license granted by the State of U. P. under the provisions of Minor Minerals (Concession ) Rules, 1963, vide mining lease dated 2/03/1994 for the extraction and collection of the same from the estate of Village Chak Basantpur, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar (NOIDA), U. P. Petitioner No. 2 is operator of trucks who carries sands extracted by writ petitioner No. 1. It is asserted in the petition that the Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Gautam Budh Nagar (NOIDA), U. P. vide letter No. 213 dated 29th Sept. 2000 issued a notification dated 20/03/1999 whereby toll tax has been imposed by the said authority on carrying sands. On 1/04/1999 the Special Secretary, Industrial Development Department, U. P. wrote a letter to the District Magistrate Gautam Budh Nagar that the Zila Panchayat has no jurisdiction to frame bye-laws in respect of minerals covered by the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 as well as U. P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963. Vide order dated 25th Sept. 2000 respondents Nos. 4 and 5 granted license to respondent No. 7 on his application dated 14th Sept. 2000. When the writ petitioner came to known on 28th Sept. 2000 that respondent No. 7 was claiming himself to be licensee on the strength of licence granted by Zila Panchayat authorities, Gautam Budh Nagar to realise toll tax @ Rs. 30. 00 per truck, they immediately on the same day made a protest in writing to respondent No. 3, namely, the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar. On 12th Oct. 2000 the writ petitioners made an inquiry from the office of the District Magistrate about the fate of his protest/application dated 28th Sept. 2000. The District Magistrate informed the writ petitioners that on 12th Oct. On 12th Oct. 2000 the writ petitioners made an inquiry from the office of the District Magistrate about the fate of his protest/application dated 28th Sept. 2000. The District Magistrate informed the writ petitioners that on 12th Oct. 2000 the former has written two letters to the Secretary, U. P. Government as well as respondent No. 4 stating that apparently, no such toll tax can be realised by the Zila Panchayat in respect of the minerals covered by the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1993 and further seeking guidance from the State Government, reply whereof is awaited. ( 3 ) IT is the contention of Mr. W. H. Khan, learned Advocate for the writ petitioners that there is no authority or jurisdiction on the part of the Zila Panchayat to issue such notification or to collect such toll tax as has been done in the instant case. He has also referred to Sections 144 and 145 of Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 19 I (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and has submitted that toll for the use of bridges constructed and maintained by the Zila Panchayat can only be imposed by Zila Panchayat. He has further submitted that in the instant case, bridge in question was constructed by Irrigation Department of the Government of U. P. and under such circumstances, the Zila Panchayat has no jurisdiction or authority to levy any toll tax. ( 4 ) MR. A. K. Goel appearing for Zila Panchayat and Mukhya Adhikari Zila Panchayat (respondent Nos. 4 and 5 respectively) has not disputed the fact that the bridge/road in question has been constructed by the Irrigation Department and not by the Zila Panchayat, Gautam Budh Nagar. He has further submitted that even though the bridge/road has been constructed and maintained by the Irrigation Department, Zila Panchayat has under the relevant provisions of the statute power to impose tax on the minerals in question taken over through the road. He has referred to List C of sub-section (2) of Section 239 and Section 145 (b) of the Act. 4 He further submits that tax is not imposed for the use of bridge but for transportation of sands over the public road. ( 5 ) WE have considered the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties. He has referred to List C of sub-section (2) of Section 239 and Section 145 (b) of the Act. 4 He further submits that tax is not imposed for the use of bridge but for transportation of sands over the public road. ( 5 ) WE have considered the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties. We are of the view that the main purpose of imposition of toll tax is to recover the cost of construction and maintenance of a bridge. In the instance case admittedly, bridge/road has not been constructed by the Zila Panchayat. The other aspects of the matter as argued by Mr. Goel is that the imposition was made for taking sands by road and the same is permissible. Section 145 (b) of the Act provides as under :"145. Licence fees and tolls in respect of markets.- Subject to any rule made by the State Government in this behalf, a Zila Panchayat or a Kshettra Panchayat may impose in any market established, maintained or managed by it any one or more of the following fees or tolls : (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) toll on vehicles, pack animals or porters bringing goods for sale into such a market. " ( 6 ) IT appears to us that the impugned notification does not relate to toll tax on vehicles, pack animals or porters bringing goods to sell in the market and as such, Section 145 (b) has no appliction in the facts and circumstances of the case. The notification relates to imposition of toll tax in respect of mines and minerals pertaining to U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules 1963 and the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. In our considered view, it is not permissible for the Zila Panchayat to impose such tax relating to transportation of sand being a part of mines and minerals falling within the purview of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957 as well as U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules 1963. ( 7 ) THE relevant provisions of the statute referred by Mr. ( 7 ) THE relevant provisions of the statute referred by Mr. Goel, learned Advocate for the Zila Panchayat, in our view cannot apply to the facts of the present case nor can the same authorise the Zila Panchayat to collect the tax in respect of such transportation of sand as already noted. ( 8 ) IN our view the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be said without any basis. We may refer to Section 144 of the Act which reads as under :"144. Certain other fees.- With the previous sanction of the State Government, a Zila Panchayat or a Kshettra Panchayat may fix and levy school fees, fee for the use of libraries and sarais and paraos, fees for the use of, or benefits derived from, any of the works or institution constructed and maintained by the Zila Panchayat originally undertaken as famine preventive or relief works fees for the service of bulls and stallions and for registration of animals and fees at fairs, markets, agricultural shows and industrial exhibitions held under its authority otherwise, to which the public is allowed access and at which the Zila Panchayat or the Kshettra Panchayat provides sanitory and other facilities for the public and tolls for the use of bridges constructed, repaired or maintianed by the Zila Panchayat or the Kshettra Panchayat :provided that a Zila Panchayat or Kshettra Panchayat shall not fix or levy fees for the use of paraos which are not vested in it. " ( 9 ) FROM a perusal of the aforesaid provision it appears that tax can only be imposed in respect of the items enumerated in the section. The scope and authority of the Zila Panchayat to frame bye-laws appears to be very much restricted and circumscribed by the provision of Section 239 of the Act in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of this case, is set out below for ready reference :"239. The scope and authority of the Zila Panchayat to frame bye-laws appears to be very much restricted and circumscribed by the provision of Section 239 of the Act in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of this case, is set out below for ready reference :"239. Power of Zila Panchayat to make bye laws.- (1) A Zila Panchayat may, and where required by the State Government shall, make bye-laws for its own purpose and for the purposes of Kshettra Panchayats, applicable to the whole or any part of the rural area of the district, consistent with this Act and with any rule, in respect of matters required by this Act to be governed by bye-laws and for the purpose of promoting or maintaining the health, safety and convenience of the inhabaitants of the rural area of the district and for the furtherance of the administration of this Act in the Khand, and the district. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by sub-section (1), a Zila Panchayat may, in the exercise of the said power, make any bye-laws described in the list below :a-Building. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 B. Drains, privies , cespools, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 B. Drains, privies , cespools, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Streets (a) Determining the information and plans to be furnished to the Kshettra Panchayat under Section 176; (b) Permitting, prohibiting or regulating the use of occupation of any or all public streets or places by itinerant vendors or by any peron for the sale of articles, or for the exercise of any calling or for the setting up of any booth or stall and providing for the levy of fees for such use of occupation; (c) Regulating the conditions on which permission may be given by the Khsettra Panchayat under Section 181 for projections over streets and drains and by the Zila Panchyat under Section 209 for the temporary occupation of streets. " ( 10 ) IT therefore, appears that only in respect of the items mentioned in Section 239 of the Act quoted above, the Zila Panchayat is authorised to impose tax. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it does not appear to us that the notification issued in the instant case comes within the purview or ambit of the said section. We are accordingly of the view that the Zila Panchayat has acted beyond its authority in passing the bye-laws in question. ( 11 ) CONSIDERING all aspets of the matter, we are of the view that the writ petition should succeed and there shall be order accordingly. ( 12 ) THE writ petition is allowed. The impugned notification No. 564/23-208/97-98 dated 20/03/1999 issued by the Upper Mukhya Adhikari Zila Panchayat, Gautam Budh Nagar (NOIDA), U. P. is hereby quashed. Consequently, the letter No. 213 dated 29-9-2000, licence dated 22-9-2000, agreement and letter dated 25-9-2000 (Annexure No. 1 to 5 to the writ petition) are also quashed. Petition allowed. .