RAM CHANDRA SABAT Vs. CHAIRMAN, NOTIFIED AREA COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant against a reversing judgment in a suit for declaration that the enhancement of licence fee levied by the defendant as mentioned in the notice dated 07.12.1983 is not valid and binding on the plaintiff and for permanent injunction.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that he is in occupation of stall no.3 constructed by the defendant. He is doing his business since 1968 on payment of Rs.30/- towards licence fee. The licence fee has been enhanced to Rs.80/-. He used to pay licence fee regularly. While matter stood thus, on 07.12.1983, defendant issued a notice enhancing the licence fee to Rs.200/- with effect from 01.01.1984. He was directed to execute a fresh lease agreement or in the alternative, to vacate the stall by 01.01.1984. Enhancement of licence fee is contrary to the provisions of the Orissa Municipal Act. The Orissa Municipal Act (in short, 'the O.M. Act') and Rules does not authorise the defendant to demand high fee. Levying of fee presupposes the existence of quid pro quo relationship, which is absent. He sent a representation to the defendant on 16.12.1983. But defendant maintained a sphinx-like silence. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the relief mentioned supra.

(3.) The defendant entered contest and filed a written statement pleading, inter alia, that the plaintiff is in occupation of stall no.3. Licence fee was Rs.80/-. The same was enhanced to Rs.200/-. The plaintiff had the option either to pay the enhance licence fee or to vacate the stall. The defendant, council decided to enhance the rate of fee taking into consideration of all aspects. The enhancement of fee is legal and justified. On 07.12.1983, the defendant issued a notice enhancing the licence fee to Rs.200/- with effect from 01.01.1984.