Malls, multiplexes can't charge parking fees: Gujarat High Court

In a judgment which would have wider ramifications, the Gujarat High Court on Wednesday held that malls, multiplexes, and other commercial complexes, cannot charge for parking from visitors under the garb of providing safety, security, etc. The court clarified that under the provision of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act and Gujarat Nagarpalika Act, malls and multiplexes are not empowered to charge parking fees. It is the duty of malls and multiplexes to provide parking to visitors.

The judgment was pronounced by the division bench of Acting Chief Justice AS Dave and Justice Biren Vaishnav in connection with a petition filed by one of the major malls in the city, Ahmedabad One.

The mall administration had challenged the directions issued to it by a single-judge bench of the court in October 2018 to provide free parking to visitors for an hour, capping the maximum daily parking charges to Rs 10 and 30 for two-and-four wheelers, respectively. It had also directed the state government to come up with a parking policy. The mall administration had moved the High Court's single-judge bench challenging the notices issued to it by the city traffic police to not charge parking fee from visitors in contravention of norms.

Meanwhile, the division bench in its judgment has also set-aside the directions issued by the single-judge bench clarifying that the court cannot direct the state government to rationalise and regulate the parking fee being collected by commercial establishments. The bench stated: "The court is ordinarily not expected to direct the state and its authorities to undertake any legislative exercise and enactment of legislation in the form of an Act, rule, or regulations, as it is the exclusive domain of the legislature".

During the marathon hearing of the case, the state government had argued that the mall administration had violated the provisions of the General Development Control Regulations (GDCR) and building use permission by changing the use of parking area into commercial activity by charging parking fees. It argued that since the mall owners are charging parking fees, visitors are parking their vehicles on the road that results in traffic snarls.

The government had also argued that the parking receipt issued by the mall owners clearly mentions that parking is at owner's risk and therefore, the argument of the mall administration that the fee is being collected towards the maintenance of the premises, security, and safety of the vehicles, and to facilitate parking, is ill-founded. It was also argued that the mall management could collect the maintenance charge of the parking area from shop owners rather than vehicle owners.

On the contrary, the mall administration contended that the right to charge a parking fee for use of its parking facilities is part of its right to carry on business enshrined under the constitution. However, the court held that the argument was devoid of merit. The court also clarified that commercial establishments cannot equate their case with municipal corporation, which collects parking fee.e charge of the parking area from shop owners rather than vehicle owners.

On the contrary, the mall administration contended that the right to charge parking fee for use of its parking facilities is part of its right to carry on business enshrined under the constitution. However, the court held that the argument was devoid of merit. The court also clarified that commercial establishments cannot equate their case with the municipal corporation, which collects parking fee.

Take A Note!

• The court clarified that under the provision of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act and Gujarat Nagarpalika Act, malls and multiplexes are not empowered to charge parking fees
• State government argued that the mall management could collect the maintenance charge of the parking area from shop owners rather than vehicle owners