SADANANDAN Vs. COMMISSIONER CORPORATION OF COCHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A learned Judge of this Court dismissed a writ petition in limine; and the appeal is directed against that order. The appeal was admitted by a Division Bench and was directed to be posted after a case then pending before a Full Bench was decided. That, case has since been decided and is reported as Kesavan Vaidyar v. Municipal Commissioner, Sherthallai ( 1970 KLT 831 ).

(2.) The appellant is a homeopath plying his profession in Mattancherry, Cochin. The Cochin Corporation, the respondent, imposed a licence fee of Rs. 15/- per year on the appellant (on other similar practitioners of homeopathy too) under S.299 of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act read with Schedule IV thereof, where the Corporation is given power to impose fee for issuing licence for storing, among other things, chemical preparations. The main question before the Full Bench was whether arishtams and asavams were chemical preparations and for storing them a licence was necessary. Tile Full Bench held that arishtams and asavams were chemical preparations. The other question decided by the Full Bench was whether there was quid pro quo for the licence fee collected by the Municipal Council, Sherthallai. On that also, considering the materials produced before Court and the allegations in the counter affidavit of the Municipal Council, the Full Bench held that there was quid pro quo and there was also correlation between the quid pro quo and the services rendered.

(3.) We shall first consider the first question, viz., whether there is quid pro quo to the appellant and other homeopaths similarly situated. The Corporation has filed to counter affidavits. And in the additional counter affidavit, the Corporation has averred that the sanitary staff employed by the Corporation had to inspect the premises of these homeopaths very often and remove the waste products: they had also to spray disinfectants around these premises very often, at least once a week, and in larger quantities than in other premises. It is also averred in the same counter affidavit that frequent inspections had to be made for checking the premises and to give directions to the licencees from time to time. In the original counter affidavit filed by the Corporation, it is stated that the receipts on the several relevant heads were less than the heads of expenses the Corporation had to meet and that the Corporation was even suffering a loss on these heads. It cannot therefore be said that the appellant is not having any quid pro quo for the licence fee he pays. There cannot also be any serious contest that the amount collected does not bear a reasonable proportion to the services rendered, because the amount is only Rs. 15/- per year; thus there is proper correlation too between the fee collected and the services rendered.