PAMPA SURYANARAYANA Vs. SRIKAKULAM MUNICIPALITY, REPTD BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for declaring the Notification dated 30-1-1974 issued by the Commissioner and Special Officer of the Srikakulam municipality in pursuance of the resolution 1/457 dt. 29-1-1974 of the Srikakulam Municipality Council as illegal and void.

(2.) The petitioners are petty manufacturers of cigars within the municipal limits of Srikakulam Municipality. Till the date of notification a licence fee was levied at the rate of Rs. 6/- per year if the manufacture was with four or less than four workers and at the rate of Rs. 10/- if it was with five or more workers On 30-1-1974 the Municipality notified that the licence fee for the manufacture of cigars should be at the rate of Rs 25/- if the manufacture is loade with four or less than four workers, and rs. 100/- if it is made with five or more workers. The Notification related to licence fee with regard to the other matters also. But in this writ petition we are concerned only with the contention of the petitioners that the notification so far as it relates to the manufacture of cigars is ultra vires. It is contended that if the licence fee charged considered as a fee, is invalid because no special services are at all rendered by the Municipality for the manufacturers of cigars and if it is to be considered as a tax, the manadatory provisions under Sections 81 to 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities act have not been followed. It is not denied that the licence fee is levied as a fee and not as a tax.

(3.) Whereas a tax is imposed for public purposes and is not supported by any consideration of service rendered in return, a fee is levied essentially for service rendered and as such there is an element of Quid Pro Quo between the person who pays the fee and the public authority which imposes it. Therefore, the question is whether there is any Quid Pro Quo with regard to the levy of the proposed fee.