P. KESAVAN Vs. COMMISSIONER, COCHIN CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for consideration in this petition is whether the petitioner who is the proprietor of the Central Lodge and Hotel Ajantha situate within the Corporation area, Cochin, is liable to pay licence fee to the Corporation in respect of the hotels and lodging houses run by him. According to him, he is not, because, there is no return for the licence fee demanded. No special services are said to have been rendered by the Corporation to the petitioner or to his class, namely hotels, restaurants and lodging houses. In 1968, it is said the licence fee was enhanced from Rs. 50.00 to Rs. 175.00 but according to the petitioner there was no justification for such enhancement. He would say that a demand was made on him for payment of licence fee at a higher rate for the years 1967-68 and 1968-69 and prosecution also was launched before the Sub-Magistrate, Ernakulam. The prosecution was contested by him. To the demand made for payment of licence fee for the year 1969-70 the petitioner is said to have objected and so was the case with the demand of licence fee for the year 1970-71. The petitioner has also a complaint that for non-payment of licence fee the water supply to the petitioner's premises was cut off by the first respondent, the Commissioner of the Cochin Corporation and this is illegal. Of course by interim orders passed by this Court supply of water has been restored. The first respondent has, in the counter affidavit, attempted to show that the levy of licence fee is justified as there was proper return not to the petitioner as such but to the licences in general by way of special services rendered to them. According to the counter-affidavit the Corporation is spending more than what it realises as licence fee towards various services to the licencees. It is averred:

(2.) It is necessary in this connection to refer to the statement in Ext. R1 relating to the Receipts and Expenditure;

(3.) The attack by the petitioner against the stand taken by the first respondent is two-fold. According to him the statement produced as Ext. R1 is irrelevant and it does not in any way indicate the special services done to the hoteliers from out of the licence fee collected from them. Secondly it is said that to justify the levy of a licence fee the special services to be shown are not such services as the auto levying the licence fee is statutorily obliged to render but additional services for the trade which is being licenced and there has been no attempt to indicate that the services said to have been rendered to the petitioner in this case are not services which the first respondent was bound to render under the provisions of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, 1961. My attention is particularly invited to Sec. 208 of the said Act.