JEEVARAJA Vs. COMMISSIONER BADAGARA MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. 284 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960 authorises a Municipal Council to publish by notification in the Gazette, that no place within the municipal limits shall be used for any one or more purposes specified in Schedule III without the licence of f the Commissioner, and except in accordance with the conditions specified therein. One of the purposes mentioned in Schedule III, with which we are concerned in this writ appeal, is the preparing or storing or selling copra, wholesale. The writ petitioner whose writ petition was dismissed, and who is the appellant before us, was called upon by Ext. P1 notice to take out a licence under S. 284 and 285 of the Act for 1968-69 in respect of his premises specified therein, which according to the notice, was being used for the purpose of the copra export trade. The writ petitioner approached this Court on the ground that the levy of Rs. 150/- as licence fee was unjustified and illegal, and sought to quash the same. A learned judge of this Court, following the principle of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Kesavan Vaidyan's case (1970 KLT. 831) held that the fee was supported by quid pro quo and dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.

(2.) EVER since the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the Liberty Cinema's case (1965 SC. 1107) it is well settled that the levy of fee can be justified only if the same is for "special benefit" to the payer of the licence fee. A number of Full Bench decisions of this Court which followed in the wake of that decision had explained the scope of "special benefit" in the light of this pronouncement and of the further decisions of the Supreme Court which had occasion to consider the matter. It is also well settled that the 'special benefit' to the payer of the licence-fee must be something is addition to what is being enjoyed by the general public. The case of Kesavan Vaidvan (1970 KLT. 831) referred to by the learned judge was heard by a Full Bench of this Court along with the Vaniamkulam Private Market's case (1971 KLT. 264 ). Judgment in both was delivered on the same day, although the one was reported earlier than the other. The levy of fee was sustained in the one case, and declared illegal in the other. Both these cases recognised the principle that the special benefit may well be services rendered to the prayer of the licence-fee in greater measure and continuity than in the case of an ordinary tax-payer, the payer of the licence-fee in question, getting more than ordinary municipal service.