JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. This FAFO has been filed against the impugned order dated 20.3.2004 passed the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kairana, District Muzaffar Nagar in Original Suit No. 77 of 2004, Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. v. Nagar Palika Parishad, Shamli.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The plaintiff appellant filed a suit to restrain the defendant respondent from recovering the amount of Rs. 1,03,20,375/- and further to restrain the defendant respondent from abolishing the poles fixed on the Mill road shown in the map filed in the plaint. We have carefully perused the impugned order. By that order the temporary injunction application of the plaintiff appellant has been rejected.
4. The plaintiff appellant has urged that on the road in question the plaintiff appellant has set up three lanes and footpath in 1983 on the advice of the S.D.M., Kairana. It is alleged that the then Chairman of the Municipal Board, Shamli gave permission on 12.7.1989 to the plaintiff to set up poles in question.
5. At page 99 of the paper book filed in this appeal there is a map showing the situation on the spot. A perusal of this map shows that the road in question has been divided into three lanes, one called Truck line, second called Trolley line, and third called other vehicles line.
6. The plaintiff appellant has a sugar unit at Shamli known as Upper Doab Sugar Mills, Shamli, Muzaffar Nagar. On the Northern side of the Mill is a road known as Mill road which leads to the Shamli Railway Station. The northern boundary wall of the factory compound opens on the aforesaid Mill road. It is stated that by this road Trucks, Trolleys and Buggies bring sugarcane into the Mill.
7. It is alleged in para 4 of the plaint which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the stay application, that in 1983 the S.D.M., Kairana, looking into the traffic situation advised the plaintiff to set up three lanes and footpath for bringing the sugar into its factory. By order of the D.M., Muzaffar Nagar dated 5.11.1988 half the costs of the construction of the road was to be borne by the plaintiff and the remaining half by the defendant. Thereafter by order of the Chairman, Nagar Palika Shamli dated 10.7.1989 the plaintiff appellant was permitted to establish the poles in question and accordingly the plaintiff established the same as shown in the site plan. The plaintiff appellant has allegedly spent several lacs rupees for this work.
8. It is alleged in para 13 of the plaint that the defendant respondent Nagar Palika Parishad sent a letter dated 17.2.2004 to the plaintiff appellant demanding Rs. 1,03,20,375/- as damages for the last 15 years for encroachment on the road. In para 14 of the plaint it is alleged that the defendant is threatening to realize the aforesaid money forcibly and to demolish the poles in question. Hence the suit was filed.
9. The stand of the defendant respondent was that the land in question was a public road and no one has a right to make constructions thereon. Hence the plaintiff appellant had no right to set up the poles in question. It was further alleged that the Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Shamli had no authority to permit the plaintiff to set up the poles in question.
10. The Court below has observed that there is nothing to show for how long the plaintiff is entitled to maintain the poles in question. The road in question is under the control and Management of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Shamli.
11. In our opinion the plaintiff appellant has no right to continue to keep the poles in question on the Mill road. The said road is a public road and not the private property of the plaintiff appellant. It seems to us prima facie that the plaintiff only wants to keep the poles in question at the place where it has set them up so that it can get a good supply of sugarcane. Two lanes of the Mill Road has been converted by the appellant for its private use. However, in our opinion the road in question is a public road, and it is for the convenience and benefit of the entire public, and not of the plaintiff alone.
12. Section 298(2), List 1, Clause 11(b) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 states :
"The Board of a municipality may make bye-laws providing for the regulation or prohibition of any description of traffic in the streets where such regulation or prohibition appears to the Board to be necessary."
13. Thus from the above statutory provision it is evident that it is for the Municipal Board to decide and lay down bye-laws for regulating the traffic in the public streets. The plaintiff cannot decide how such traffic is to be regulated. Hence in our opinion the plaintiff appellant has no prima facie case in his favour to get an injuction preventing removal of the poles in question. It is for the Municipal Board, Shamli to decide how the traffic on the Mill road is to be regulated. However, we direct that Nagar Palika Parishad, Shamli should frame bye-laws under Section 298 for regulating the traffic on the Mill road. In fact we have given such a direction in Tika Ram Yadav v. State of U.P., (2004) 1 UPLBEC 247, for the whole of the State, as there is a terrible traffic and parking problem in almost every city in U.P..
14. Learned Counsel for the appellant has stated that the Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Shamli had given permission to the appellant to set up the poles in question vide Annexure-9 to the stay application. In our opinion the Chairman has no power or authority to grant the permission. It is only the Board of the municipality which can frame bye-laws under Section 298 of the U.P. Municipalities Act for regulating the traffic. The Chairman of the Board is not the same as the entire Board; he is only one member of the Board, and he alone cannot regulate the traffic. To this extent this appeal is dismissed.
15. However, as regards the demand for payment of Rs. 1,03,20,375/- we have not been shown any statutory provision for demanding this amount from the plaintiff appellant. Hence in our prima facie opinion this demand is illegal as it is not backed by any statutory authority. If the plaintiff appellant has committed some illegality it is always open to the defendant respondent to file a suit for damages, but it cannot unilaterally impose a fine of the kind it has done. Hence we direct that till disposal of the suit the aforesaid demand shall remain stayed.
16. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.