Parking Perils And The Insignificant Indian !
BY
R.K.MISRA
It
just takes an ant to bring down an elephant.
The
insignificant Indian, coerced to cough up cash at every point, has cause for
some cheer.
This
is because a small issue which touches a myriad lives has now reached the
Supreme
Court after
exhausting itself in the courtrooms of Gujarat.
Malls, multiplexes and commercial establishments India-wide
have been charging for vehicle parking every day over the last few years,
turning it into a virtual scam. The lack of a clear-cut policy on this has
caused large-scale consumer exploitation. But no longer.
On July 10, 2019, the Gujarat High Court put a stop to
these charges but the owners of these establishments were not ready to take
this lying down and approached the Supreme Court. The apex court has issued a
notice to the Gujarat government to file its reply within this month.
The story unfolded in July 2018 when the Ahmedabad,
Vadodara and Surat police commissioners imposed a ban on malls, multiplexes and
commercial establishments levying parking charges on visitors after PILs were
filed on the issues of road quality, traffic and parking. The owners of malls
and multiplexes approached a single-judge bench of the Gujarat High Court
against the notifications.
In their petition, mall owners questioned the notifications
of the police chiefs and asserted that collecting parking fees from visitors
was their right. Also, under no law did the police authorities have powers to
stop them from collecting such charges. The authorities, at best, can insist on
keeping enough parking spaces in their complexes, but cannot restrain them from
charging parking fees.
The state government
supported its police chiefs contending that it was the responsibility of
commercial establishments to provide free parking to visitors. The police
chiefs told the Court that levying parking fees by these establishments
constituted an offence under Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code for wrongful
restraint. The contention of the malls was that municipal corporations were
already collecting parking charges and therefore commercial establishments
cannot be restricted from doing so as the parking lots was their property.
Justice Bela Trivedi in her judgment on October 17,
2018 ruled that commercial establishments would have to provide free
parking to visitors for the first hour but could charge a parking fee of a
maximum of Rs 10 per day from two-wheelers and Rs 30 per day from
four-wheelers. The Court, however, quashed the notices and orders of the police
authorities, but directed the urban development department of the Gujarat
government to take a decision on the parking policy at the earliest to
rationalize and regulate the fees levied by these establishments. It also
directed the state government to amend the General Development
Control Regulations (GDCR) in this regard. It, however, clarified that
government agencies may continue with their drive against encroachments and
illegal parking on public roads. Apparently, in the absence of any specific
rules, the single-judge bench ruled in favour of the malls, but issued multiple
directions to them.
The aggrieved commercial establishments were soon
back at the Gujarat High Court, this time before a division bench. This
bench in November 2018 stayed the verdict of the single-judge bench. It also
stayed the Court order directing the state government to formulate a
comprehensive parking policy if it wished to control the parking charges levied
by the commercial establishments. Nevertheless, it was made clear that the
government was free to formulate such a policy if it so desired. The counsel
for the petitioners had contended that as per the Supreme Court, courts cannot
direct the government to frame policies as it is the prerogative of the latter.
The final verdict of the bench, led by acting chief
justice AS Dave on July 10, 2019, however, struck down the single-judge order
and said these establishments cannot levy parking charges. It upheld the state
government’s argument that the GDCR does not permit it. In fact, the GDCR
mandates that commercial complexes allocate parking spaces for visitors
commensurate with the size and kind of commercial activities taking place
therein.
The division bench ruled: “The provisions of the
comprehensive General Development Control Regulation (GDCR), 2017 or the
Gujarat provincial Municipal Corporations Act,1948 and the Gujarat Town
Planning and Urban Development Act,1976 do not contemplate parking fee” or
“parking-charges” to be levied from the visitors of a mercantile or malls or
multiplexes or commercial complexes. The bench also quashed the single-judge
direction to the government to form a parking policy stating that it was the
exclusive domain of the legislature.
This is not the first time that the issue has figured
in a High Court. Years earlier, the High Court in Hyderabad had ruled
similarly. Justice Madan Mohan had clearly stated in his judgment then that
“parking fees is an illegal amount collected from consumers and violates state
laws”. Sources said that while it was implemented in Hyderabad and other parts
of Telangana, establishments in Andhra Pradesh did not follow the Court
verdict.
However in February this year, the Vijayawada Consumer
Forum fined a mall Rs 5 lakh after a visitor approached it saying that he had
been charged Rs 40 as parking charges for four hours. Justice Madhava Rao, who
gave the order, also directed the mall to return the parking fees to the
complainant and pay him Rs 5,000, including his legal expenses. Incidentally,
in June this year, the city improvement committee of Pune Municipal Corporation
also passed a resolution for free parking at malls and multiplexes.
Such judgments are the way to go and the citizenry
would definitely be rooting for them. In some malls in Delhi, the parking fees
are even hiked during weekends to cash in on the higher footfalls then. Parking
has also been a contentious issue in private hospitals where parking is charged
from family members of the patient and visitors and can burn quite a hole in
the pocket during such constrained circumstances.
All eyes are now on the apex court for a final answer.
Comments
Post a Comment