Disposed

Bhagirathi Outdoor Photographer Association Office Trimurti Color Lab v. State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary Local Bodies

Uttarakhand HC17 Dec 2020WPMS/675/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged bye-laws imposing high annual license and registration fees on outdoor photographers lacking provided facilities. Court held fees unjustified but dismissed suit for quashing, directing petitioner to seek relief via representation to Municipal Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to make representation to Municipal Commissioner, Haridwar within three weeks; Municipal Commissioner to place before Board for decision.

Bhagirathi Outdoor Photographer Association… — Writ and Judicial Review | Uttarakhand HC (2020)

¶1

WPMS No. 675 of 2017 Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

¶2

Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶3

Mr. Tumul K. Nainwal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶4

Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 3.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by Bhagirathi Outdoor Photographer Association, Har Ki Paudi, through its Secretary.

¶7

Petitioner is aggrieved by the bye-laws, which have been notified on 02.02.2016. Byelaw No. 5 provides that, for outdoor photography, license fee of 10,000/- per annum would be payable. Bye-law No. 10 further provides that, for photography license, Registration Fee of 5,000/- would be payable and license, if not renewed in three consecutive years, shall stand cancelled.

¶8

In paragraph no. 11 of the writ petition, it has been stated that shops belonging to Municipal Corporation, admeasuring 10 x 12 feet, have been leased out for an annual rent of 15,000/- and, similarly, barbers, who have been allotted shops, admeasuring 4 x 6 feet, for running business are required to pay only 100 per annum as fee; but, the photographers, who have not been provided any facility, are being asked to pay exorbitant amount of fee. Grievance raised by the petitioner association appears to be justified.

¶9

Since photographers have not been provided any shop or any other special facility by the Municipal Corporation, therefore, asking them to pay 10,000/- per annum as license fee and 5,000/- as Registration Fee, does not appear to be justified.

¶10

Since the Municipal Corporation is competent to make bye-laws and there is no challenge to the competence of the Municipal Corporation in this regard, therefore, the relief claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted, however, having regard to the facts & circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make representation to Municipal Commissioner, Haridwar, within three weeks from today. The Municipal Commissioner shall place the representation before the Board of Municipal Corporation and the Board shall thereafter take appropriate decision in the matter, in accordance with law, at the earliest.

¶11

Arpan

¶12

(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.)

Bhagirathi Outdoor Photographer Association Office Trimurti Color Lab v. State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary Local Bodies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagirathi Outdoor Photographer Association Office Trimurti Color Lab v. State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary Local Bodies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umed Singh Vs Azizul Wahid Siddiqui and Others Legal Heir Azim Baksh through

Kunwar Sen Vs State of Uttarakhand

Dhananjay Prasad Nautiyal Vs the Chief Medical Officer

Basant Raj Vs State of Uttarakhand

Divyansh Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary

Swami Shukdevanand Trust Vs Sharad Chandra Mishra