VIMAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were aggrieved with the notices issued similar to Ext.P2 as seen from W.P.(C) No.11151 of 2016. The petitioners contend that they were paying nominal licence fees, which stood enhanced to almost four times as is seen from Ext.P2; on an unilateral revision made on account of the Panchayath being constituted as a Municipality.

(2.) The contention of the petitioners was that the petitioners had been continuing for long in the shopping complex, when the Municipality was earlier a Panchayath. The petitioners were also granted continued lease in the successive years on nominal annual enhanced licence fees of 5%. The petitioners have now been threatened with an arbitrary enhancement as is indicated at Ext.P2 and other similar orders, which allegedly is under Section 4(5) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (for brevity 'the Act of 1994). The petitioners contend that no such power can be derived by the Municipality from Section 4(5) of the Act of 1994.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners would point out that Section 4(5) of the Act of 1994 contemplates a situation when the Village Panchayath area is constituted as a Municipality. From that point the newly constituted Municipality would be entitled to levy all tax fees or other charges levied in that area as leviable under the provisions of the Act of 1994 and rules, regulations and bye -laws made thereunder. The specific power for making such levies is available under Article 243X of the Constitution of India; which has been statutorily permitted.