DALHOUSIE INSTITUTE Vs. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is a private members club obliged to obtain permission from and pay amusement fees under Section 422 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and whether the premises of a private members club is a "place of public amusement" within the meaning of Section 422 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and, therefore, falls for consideration in the present writ petition.

(2.) THE first writ petitioner is a club registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1961. It claims to be a private members club and not open to outsiders, having stringent admission policies. It contends that, it is not obliged to obtain permission under Section 422 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and, therefore, not liable to pay amusement fees under such section.

(3.) IN support of such contentions Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, learned Senior Advocate for the writ petitioners relies upon (The Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Harbour Division, II -Madras v. The Young Men s Indian Association (Regd.), Madras and Ors, 1970 1 SCC 462), (Commissioner of Income -Tax v. Darjeeling Club Ltd, 1985 153 ITR 676), (The Saturday Club Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax Cell, Calcutta and Ors, 2005 1 CalLT 575) and (Bengal Club Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Police and Ors, 1989 CrLJ 535). Mr. Mitra contends that, Section 422 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 contemplates a situation where a premises is open to the public and is used for recreation, amusement and like purposes, then the owner of such premises may be obliged to obtain permission under Section 422 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and pay amusement fees for the same. So far as the writ petitioners are concerned, he submits that, the premises of the first writ petitioner is not a public place and, therefore, does not satisfy the requirements of Section 422 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 for the first writ petitioner to apply for and obtain a licence under such section. He contends that, the first writ petitioner is not liable to pay the amusement fees for the same.