JAYANT PATEL, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Mr. Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation for respondents No. 1 and 2 waives service of notice of rule. With the consent of learned advocate for both the sides, the matter is finally heard today. ( 2 ) THE only question which arise for consideration of this Court is the scope and ambit of the power of the Corporation under Sections 230 and 231 of the Bombay provincial Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act")and whether the power is extended to applying the seal over the premises or the power is restricted to removal the vehicle or the things on the street or road. ( 3 ) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioner is having a shop No. 71-72 in mahavir Estate. The petitioner-Company is doing the business of courier. The vehicles of the petitioners were parked on road adjustant to the shop and it is the case of the respondent-Corporation that the vehicles were parked which created problem for traffic and it also damage the road and therefore, the fine was imposed. It is further the case of the respondent-Corporation that as the vehicles were not removed and the fine was not paid and, there was also law and order problem, the respondent-Corporation applied seal to the premises of the petitioner. The petitioner contents that the fine was also tendered but the Officers of the Corporation declined and in highhanded manner seals were applied over the shop and under these circumstances the present petition. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, as well as, for the respondent-Corporation, Mr. Desai. ( 5 ) THERE is no dispute on the point that the vehicles were parked on road by the petitioner for its business purpose. There is also not dispute on the point that seals were applied by the Officers of the respondent-Corporation to the office premises of the petitioner. It may be recorded that pending the petition on 21/7/2006, this Court passed the interim order and in pursuance thereto the amount is deposited by the petitioner and the seal is also removed by the corporation. ( 6 ) MR. It may be recorded that pending the petition on 21/7/2006, this Court passed the interim order and in pursuance thereto the amount is deposited by the petitioner and the seal is also removed by the corporation. ( 6 ) MR. DESAI, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation heavily relied upon the provisions of Sections 230 and 231 of the Act and contended that if the obstruction is not removed, there is power with the Corporation to apply seal. In furtherance to his submission, Mr. Desai relied on the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed by Shri Dantani, inspector (Estate East Zone), Ahmedabad municipal Corporation and more particularly, the averments made from paragraphs No. 5, 6, 7 and 8 and contended that the vehicles of the petitioners were parked over a public road and the petitioner was informed for removal of the encroachment and that the Deputy municipal Commissioner visited the place and the vehicles were not removed and therefore when the Corporation tried to toe the vehicles, the driver of the vehicle took away the vehicle and acted in highhanded manner and there was Gheravo to the officers of the Corporation and the Police was called and as the petitioner-company has refused to pay the fine, the premises were sealed so that the petitioner may not park its vehicle on public road and may not make encroachment over the public road. In paragraph No. 8, it has been stated that the corporation could have toed the vehicle and recovered the charges but since the action of the petitioner was such that the officer of the Corporation had no other option but to seal the premises and to recover the fine for making encroachment over the public street, action was taken. ( 7 ) SECTIONS 230 and 231 of the Act reads as under. 230. Prohibition of deposit, etc. of things in streets. ( 7 ) SECTIONS 230 and 231 of the Act reads as under. 230. Prohibition of deposit, etc. of things in streets. (1) No person shall, except with the written permission of the Commissioner (a) place or deposit upon any street, or upon any open channel, drain or well in any street or in any public place any stall, chair, bench, box, ladder, bale, or other thing whatever so as to form an obstruction thereto or encroachment thereon; (b) project, at a height of less than twelve feet from the surface of the street, any board or chair, beyond the line of the plinth of any building over any street, or over any person channel ,drain, well or tank in any street; (c) attach to, or suspend from, any wall or portion of a building abutting on a street, at a lower height than aforesaid anything whatever. (2) Nothing in clause (a) of sub-section (1) applies to building materials. 231. Commissioner may, without notice, remove anything erected, deposited or hawked or exposed for sale in contravention of Act. The Commissioner, may, without notice, cause to be removed (a) any wall, fence, rail, post, step, booth or other structure whether fixed or moveable and whether of a permanent or a temporary nature, or any fixture which shall be erected or set up in or upon or over any street or upon or over any open channel, drain, well or tank contrary to the provisions of this Act after the appointed day; (b) any stall, chair, bench, box, ladder, bale, board or shelf, or any other thing whatever placed, deposited, projected, attached or suspended in, upon, from or to any place in contravention of this Act; (c) any article whatsoever hawked or exposed for sale in a public place or in any public street in contravention of the provisions of this Act and any vehicle, package, box or any other thing in or on which such article is place. ( 8 ) SECTION 230 of the Act provides that no person without permission of the commissioner shall place or deposit upon any street, or upon any open channel, drain or well in any street or in any public place any stall, chair, bench, box, ladder, bale, or other thing whatever so as to form an obstruction thereto or encroachment thereon. ( 9 ) SECTION 231 of the Act provides that the Commissioner may force to be removed any stall, chair, bench, box, ladder, bale, board or shelf, or any other thing whatever placed, deposited, projected to any place if it is in contravention to this Act. Clause-3 of Section 231 of the Act provides for enabling power with the Commissioner to remove any article whatsoever hawked or exposed for sale in a public place or in any public street in contravention of the provisions of this Act and any vehicle, package, box or any other thing in or on which such article is place. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, both the Sections, even if, interpreted liberally, prohibits any thing to be placed over a public street without permission of the Commissioner and enables the Commissioner to remove such obstruction or encroachment made over the road by any thing and it may include the vehicle too over the public street or road. Neither Section 230 nor Section 231 provides for enabling power with the commissioner to apply seal over the premises in front of which the vehicles are parked on public street or road. At the most such power may be exercised for removal of the article or anything which is put without permission or by way of encroachment over public street or road. ( 11 ) MR. DESAI, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation further submitted that as per Section 438 of the act, the expenses incurred by the commissioner for effecting any removal under Section 231 of the Act, are recoverable by the sale of the materials removed, and if sale proceeds is not sufficient, the balance shall be paid by the owner of the said materials and, therefore the attempt on part of Mr. Desai for the corporation was to justify the stand of the officers of the Corporation of applying seal over the premises. ( 12 ) IN my view, even if, Section 438 is considered the language of the section provides for the expenses to be recovered for removal and therefore it is more apparent that the power under Section 231 of the Act are for removal of the obstruction or the encroachment over the street or the road. It is not the case of the respondent-Corporation that the vehicles were removed and the amount of rs. It is not the case of the respondent-Corporation that the vehicles were removed and the amount of rs. 10,000/- was proposed to be recovered towards the expenses incurred by the commissioner for effecting removal. But, the affidavit-in-reply shows that a fine is imposed and such fine was proposed to be recovered and as it was not paid the seals were applied. Section 230 or 231 of the Act do not provide for imposition of any fine and it provides for the enabling power with the Commissioner to remove such obstruction and the expenses for removal of such obstruction may be recovered in accordance with Law under Section 438 of the Act. In the present case, when the vehicles were not removed by the corporation or Commissioner, there was no question of recovering any expenses thereof. Mr. Desai, has not been able to show any enabling power with the corporation for imposition of such fine and even otherwise also, Sections 230 and 231 of the Act, do not provide for imposition of any fine or recovery thereof. Therefore, the action of imposition of fine and recovery thereof for keeping of the vehicle on the road appears to be without there being any authority under the Law. ( 13 ) IT hardly requires to be recorded that for imposition of fine, there should be an authority under the law and if there is no authority under the law, more particularly, in view of Section 230 read with Section 231 of the Act, the Corporation could not have imposed the fine. It is the case of the respondent - Corporation that since the fine was not paid, the premises was sealed. As observed earlier, there is no power with the commissioner to apply sea! as per the provisions of Section 230 read with Section 231 of the Act nor it is the case of the respondent - Corporation that the expenses for removal of the vehicle were sought to be recovered and were not paid and therefore, the seals were applied. Further, as observed earlier, there is no power under section 230 read with Section 231 of the act to recover any fine if the vehicle is parked on the street or the road. Under these circumstances, the action of applying seal is without there being an authority under the law and therefore, cannot be allowed to stand. Further, as observed earlier, there is no power under section 230 read with Section 231 of the act to recover any fine if the vehicle is parked on the street or the road. Under these circumstances, the action of applying seal is without there being an authority under the law and therefore, cannot be allowed to stand. ( 14 ) IN view of the aforesaid, the notice dated 19. 07. 2006, Annexure-A, is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the amount deposited by the petitioner in pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court will be required to be refunded to the petitioner. It is hereby directed that the Corporation shall refund the amount within a period of two weeks from the receipt of the order of this Court. However, it is clarified that the aforesaid decision shall operate qua the power of the Corporation to impose fine and/or to apply seal over the premises of the petitioner and the same shall not operate as a bar to the Corporation from exercising the power under Section 230 read with section 231 of the Act for removal of any obstruction or any encroachment over the public street or road and recovering of the expenses thereof in accordance with Section 438 of the Act. ( 15 ) THE petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances, as the action of imposition of fine and applying seal for non-payment of such fine is without any authority under the law, the Corporation shall also pay the cost of Rs. 2,500/- to the petitioner and such amount of cost shall be paid together with the refund of the alleged amount of fine as ordered earlier within a period of two weeks from today. Rule made absolute accordingly rule made absolute.