Judgment :- Koshy, J. All these writ petitions except W.P.(C)No.31156 of 2005 are filed by the private bus operators questioning the imposition and enhancement of fees collected by the Corporation of Kochi at the rate of Rs.20/= per day by Ext.P1 notification dated 10.1.2005. It is their contention that more than 700 buses are passing through Kaloor bus stand itself and at the rate of Rs.20/- per day more than Rs.7,200/= will be collected from each vehicle per year. According to them, the fees charged by the corporation is illegal and arbitrary and liable to be set aside. It is also argued by the bus owners that increase of fees from Rs.10/= to Rs.20/= is arbitrary and virtually there is no quid pro quo and no service is rendered by the Corporation except name sake services done in the four bus stand. The private bus operators contended that they are paying huge motor tax apart from wages to their employees and there is separate allotment to Corporation for maintenance of road from road tax paid by them and the huge amount collected in any way is arbitrary and illegal. The Corporation has given the right to collect the fees from the vehicles to contractors and one such contractor filed W.P.(C)No.31156 of 2005 for getting assistance of police for collecting the fees. Three categories are involved in these cases. (1) private buses starting or ending their services within Kochi Corporation limits (2) buses passing through the declared bus stands within Kochi Corporation. There are four declared bus stands in Kochi Corporation, i.e., Kaloor, Edakochi, Mattanchery and Fort Kochi. Apart from buses starting and ending their services in the above bus stands, many other buses, as per the permit conditions, are bound to pass through those bus stands even though they may not start or end their services there, but, allowed to halt there. (3) The buses which are not even touching any of these bus stands, but, passing through 32 stops in the city which are mentioned as vandi pettas in the notification issued inviting tenders from contractors for collecting the fees. 2. (3) The buses which are not even touching any of these bus stands, but, passing through 32 stops in the city which are mentioned as vandi pettas in the notification issued inviting tenders from contractors for collecting the fees. 2. The main contention of the bus operators is that consistently this court has taken a view for the last three decades that a place can be called as a bus stand where bus services commence or terminate and only such places can be called as bus stands as decided in State of Kerala v. The Elappara Panchayat (ILR 1978 (1) Kerala 431) and Rajagopala Prabhu v. Commr., Municipal Council, Irinjalakuda (1980 K.L.T.644). This has been followed in several other cases. Therefore, only buses starting or ending in the four declared bus stands in the city need pay the fees imposed by the Corporation. Before going to the other matters, we will consider the relevant statutory provisions. 3. Section 472 of the Kerala Municipality Act reads as follows: “472 Provision of public cart stands etc.- (1) A Municipality may, subject to such (guidelines) as the Government may issue in this behalf, construct or provide public landing places, halting places and cart stands and may levy fees for the use of the same. (2) The Municipality may- (a) place the collection of any such fees under the management of such person as may appear to it to be proper; or (b) farm out the collection of any such fees for any period not exceeding three years at a time and on such terms and conditions as it may think fit. (3) A Statement in English and the language of the locality, showing the fees fixed by the Municipality for the use of such place, shall be put up in a conspicuous part thereof. Explanation:- A cart stand shall, for the purposes of this Act, include a (bus stand, taxi stand, autorickshaw stand, lorry stand and stand for other vehicles arid of animals).” Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows: “117. Explanation:- A cart stand shall, for the purposes of this Act, include a (bus stand, taxi stand, autorickshaw stand, lorry stand and stand for other vehicles arid of animals).” Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows: “117. Parking places and halting stations:- The State Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, in consultation with the local authority having jurisdiction in the area concerned, determine places at which motor vehicles may stand either indefinitely or for a specified period of time, and may determine the places at which public service vehicles may stop for a longer time than is necessary for the taking up and setting down of passengers.” It is the contention of the Corporation as well as contractors that authorization under the Municipality Act to collect fees by the Corporation is not only from the bus stands but also from the halting places. ‘Vandi Pettas’ mentioned in the notification are halting places and they are entitled to collect fees from buses passing through it. Various services rendered by the Corporation justify collection of fees. 4. Under section 472 of the Municipality Act, the Municipality is entitled to construct or provide cart stands, halting places and public landing places and may levy fees for the use of the same. As far as the bus operators are concerned, their ‘cart’ is the ‘bus’ and ‘cart stand’ is ‘the bus stand’ and we are not considering the question of autorickshaw stand or taxi stand in these writ petitions. Much arguments were stressed on the meaning of ‘bus stand’. In Rajagopala Prabhu’s case (supra) following the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. The Elappara Panchayat (ILR 1978 (1) Ker. Much arguments were stressed on the meaning of ‘bus stand’. In Rajagopala Prabhu’s case (supra) following the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. The Elappara Panchayat (ILR 1978 (1) Ker. 431) it was held as follows: “In the aforementioned decision in State of Kerala v. The Elappara Panchayat (ILR 1978 (1) Kerala 431) the Division Bench followed the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in T.B. Ibrahim v. Regional Transport Authority (AIR (40) 1953 SC.79), Municipal Board v. State Transport Authority, Rajasthan (AIR 1965 SC 458) and Bhopal Municipality v. S.S.M.T. Co-operative Society (AIR 1973 SC 2420) and held that the expression “bus stand’ connotes only a place where bus services commence and terminate their operation and that places where bus services are to halt merely for setting down or taking up passengers cannot be regarded as bus stand. We are in respectful agreement with the said view and accordingly we hold that the municipality was not justified in insisting that the petitioner’s bus should be taken to the ‘bus stand’ provided by the municipality and the petitioner should pay fees to the municipality at the rate of Rs.1/=per day for the use of the facilities provided at the said place by the municipality.” The above judgment was rendered after considering the supreme Court decisions as there was no definition for ‘bus stand’ in the Municipality Act or in the Motor Vehicles Act. The above decision was consistently followed in various other decisions even though a dissenting view was expressed by a learned Single Judge in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohammed (1983 K.L.T.270) wherein it was stated that apart from the bus stands some places may be correctly called halting stations. It was held in that case that even if the bus is not starting or terminating at that place, the bus is bound to stop at that place as per the permit conditions and Municipality will be entitled to collect fees. It is true that as decided by the Supreme Court as well as this court earlier, in the absence of a definition to call a place as ‘bus stand’ the bus should start or terminate at that place. It is true that as decided by the Supreme Court as well as this court earlier, in the absence of a definition to call a place as ‘bus stand’ the bus should start or terminate at that place. Section 472 of the Kerala Municipality Act authorizes not only to provide bus stands but also halting places and landing places and, therefore, if such halting places or landing places are approved and buses are allowed to halt there for some time unlike mere ‘bus stops’ where buses are allowed to stop only for alighting or boarding passengers without parking for more time, the Corporation may have statutory authorization to levy fees for the use of the same. But, it cannot charge fees for ‘bus stops’. In Rajagopala Prabhu’s case (supra) and other cases the court was considering the question what is bus stand and not the halting place. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Municipal Board, Pushkar v. State Transport Authority, Rajasthan and others (AIR 1965 SC 458) considered what is bus stand and what is halting place and at paragraph 18 it was observed as follows: “18. We may make it clear that even if this binding authority in Ibrahim’s Case had not been present we would have had no hesitation in holding that the fixation or alteration of a bus stand is make under a rule made under Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act and cannot be made under S. 76. In our opinion, Chapter VI which deals with the question of “control of traffic” in general has nothing to do with the fixation or alteration of bus stands. Section 76 has no doubt used the words places at which motor vehicles may stand’ and the learned Attorney-General tried to persuade us that this includes the fixation of what is known as bus stand. While the word ‘bus stand’ has not been defined in the Act. We have no hesitation in accepting the contention of the respondents that a bus stand means a place where bus services commence or terminate. It is the place where the buses stand for commencing its transport service or where they stand after terminating their service, that is popularly known as a bus-stand. We have no hesitation in accepting the contention of the respondents that a bus stand means a place where bus services commence or terminate. It is the place where the buses stand for commencing its transport service or where they stand after terminating their service, that is popularly known as a bus-stand. We do not think the words “places at which the motor vehicles may stand either indefinitely or for a specified period of time” can be reasonably interpreted to include a bus stand in the above sense. When it is remembered that Chapter VI in which S.76 occurs, is intended to deal with the control of traffic it becomes clear that the determination of places at which the Motor Vehicles may stand either indefinitely or for a specified period of time means the “determination of parking while the determination of places at which public vehicles may stop for a longer time than is necessary for the taking up and setting down of passengers means “halting stations for public service vehicles.” It is well worth noticing that while the determination of such places for stoppage, in the latter portion of the section can be in respect of public service vehicles only the determination of places of standing in the first part of the section is in respect of motor vehicles in general.” It is very clear that if a bus is only allowed to stop for picking up and setting down passengers and not allowed to halt or stop in that place, it cannot be called a halting place notwithstanding the fact that Corporation in the notification inviting tenders for collecting fees mentioned 36 bus stops in the city as vandi pettas. A halting place has to be declared as provided under section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act and such halting places also can be seen from the permits. In Municipal Board. V. Jassa Singh ((1996) 10 SCC 377) it is held by the Apex Court that the Constitution authorizes the appropriate legislature to command local authority to provide public conveniences and on such public amenities including bus-stops having been provided by the municipalities, as a statutory function, they can levy fees, but, it should be statutorily authorized. In Municipal Board. V. Jassa Singh ((1996) 10 SCC 377) it is held by the Apex Court that the Constitution authorizes the appropriate legislature to command local authority to provide public conveniences and on such public amenities including bus-stops having been provided by the municipalities, as a statutory function, they can levy fees, but, it should be statutorily authorized. No compulsory levy of fees or in that matter tax or cess can be imposed without specific statutory authority as held in Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1979 SC 321). Admittedly, Section 472 of the Kerala Municipality Act authorizes only to charge fees for landing places or halting places or bus stands and not for bus stops. In bus stops like Kacheripady in the heart of the city no bus is allowed to halt, but buses are allowed only to stop for exit and entry of passengers. 5. The question whether a vehicle using bus stands is bound to pay fees was considered by a Division Bench of this Court (in which one of us Koshy, J. was a member) in W.A.No.1064 of 1997. In that case, it was held that if the buses are liable and entitled to stop in the declared bus stands, bus operators are bound to pay the fees irrespective of the time they are using such bus stands. If they are liable to stop the buses in those bus stands on payment even if they are not stopping and using those bus stands, they are liable to pay fee. They cannot avoid payment of fees by halting or stopping their buses little ahead of the bus stands or any other reason. Passengers who are waiting for the bus can use the service of the bus stand and wait for the bus to come so that they can enter into the bus on arrival. Another decision of a learned Single Judge in O.P.No.3611 of 1991 was also cited before us where the Kochi Corporation was a party. In that case, the learned Single Judge was considering whether merely because bus was stopped at Kacheripadi junction they are bound to pay the required fees and it was held that so long as those buses were not staring from any of the bus stands situated within Kochi Corporation limits and not entering into the bus stands, they are not liable to pay the fees. It is submitted by the senior counsel appearing for the bus operators that the above was not appealed against and that is binding on the Corporation. 6. Taking into consideration of all the decisions cited and statutory provisions, considering section 472 of the Kerala Municipality Act as well as Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, we are of the opinion that (1) if the buses are starting or ending their services in any place within Kochi Corporation, they are liable to pay the fees as required. (2) If the buses are starting from the four declared bus stands or if they stop or bound to stop as per the permit conditions in those bus stands or close by, they are also liable to pay the fees as required. (3) Corporation cannot collect fees if the buses are not bound to touch those bus stands (cart stands) or declared halting places under section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Corporation cannot collect fees if buses are not allowed to halt but only to stop for picking up or getting down of passengers like Kacheripadi junction or other bus stops in Kochi city without touching any bus stand or halting place. It is submitted that only very few buses are there which are not touching the declared bus stands. If those places are declared as halting places as per the M.V. Act, position will be different. 7. It is submitted that the amount collected is very high compared to the number of buses and daily collections and cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Cannanore v. Raman Nanbiar (1969 K.L.T. 49) wherein the Supreme Court while considering enhancement of levy of bus stand fee to Rs.1 per day per bus held that the above amount was very high that the collections at the rate of Rs.1/= per day amounted to Rs.2,500/= per month and the monthly expenses incurred for the maintenance of the bus stand and incidental matters were only Rs.381/- per month and, therefore, such an increasing of fees was arbitrary. However, in these cases, it is not proved regarding the co-relative expenses spent by the Corporation and Supreme Court was considering the case where levy was imposed in 1961. We are in 2006. Expenses incurred by Corporation to maintain bus stands etc. increased several times. Money value has been decreased. However, in these cases, it is not proved regarding the co-relative expenses spent by the Corporation and Supreme Court was considering the case where levy was imposed in 1961. We are in 2006. Expenses incurred by Corporation to maintain bus stands etc. increased several times. Money value has been decreased. The traditional concept of ‘quid pro quo’ has undergone a transformation recently. As held in Delhi Municipality v. Mohd. Yasin (AIR 1983 SC 617) though a fee must be co-related to the services rendered, such relationship need not be mathematical. A broad co-relationship is all that is necessary. In the absence of materials, we are unable to say that enhancement of fee from Rs.10= to Rs.20/= is arbitrary as not corresponding with the expenses incurred by the Corporation. It is submitted by the contractors that they participated in the tender on the basis that they can collect the fees from buses touching all bus stops mentioned in the notification. If they have got any grievance, it is for them to approach Corporation in this regard. All the writ petitions are disposed of with the above observations.