WARYAM SINGH AND SONS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Waryam Singh and sons (petitioner) own a brick-kiln at Amritsar and Beant Singh petitioner is its partner. The Punjab Government in exercise of powers conferred by S. 3 of the East Punjab Control of Bricks Supplies Act, 1949. Made an order called "The Punjab Control of Bricks Supplies order, 1949." On June 5, 1956. Under Clause (3) of this order it was incumbent for a dealer in bricks to obtain a licence. The fee prescribed for grant of licence was Rs. 200/- and for its renewal Rs. 100/- . The Punjab Control of Bricks Order, 1956, was struck down in C. W. P. No. 1632 of 1961 vide order Dt. Mar. 20, 1972. The Punjab Government then promulgated the Punjab Control of under the licence and renewal fee was maintained at Rs. 200/- and Rs. 100/ respectively. The State Government again issued the Punjab Control of Bricks Supplies (First Amendment) Order, 1978 on Feb. 27. 1978(P. 2). It was provided under the amended clause (7) that then licence shall be granted or renewed for such period not exceeding 3 years at a time as may be desired by the applicant at the time of making application for grant or renewal as the case may be. It was further provided that the fee for granting of a licence for a period not exceeding one year would be Rs. 200/- for a period exceeding one year but not exceeding two years would be Rs. 300/- and that for a period exceeding 2 years up to 3 years would be Rs. 400/- . The renewal fee of the licence was Rs. 100/- for one year or part thereof. The State Government promulgated yet another order called "The Punjab Control of Bricks Supplies)1st Amendment) Order, 1979" on May 4. 1979(P. 3). Whereby it enhanced the amount of licence f fee from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 1500/- for one year and from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 2500/- for a period exceeding one year but not exceeding two years and from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 3250/- for a period exceeding 2 years but not exceeding 3 years. This order further provided enhancement of fee for the renewal of the licence from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 1250 /-for a period not exceeding one year and to Rs. 2375/- for period exceeding one year but not exceeding two years and to Rs. 300/- for a period exceeding 2 years but not exceeding 3 years. The petitioners have assailed the order P. 3 in the present writ.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the licence and renewal fees prescribed under the impugned order P.3 is in the nature of a tax and far exceeds the expenses incurred for the services rendered. the impugned order P. 3 is liable to be quashed on this ground. Reliance has been placed on Chief Commr. Delhi v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co., Ltd. AIR 1978 SC 1181, wherein it has been held that a fee in order to be a legal fee, must satisfy two conditions (i) there must be an element of quid pro quo that is to say, the authority levying the fee must render some service for the fee levied however remote the service for the fee levied however remote the service may be, and (ii) that the fee realised must be spent for the purposes of the imposition and should not purposes of the imposition and should not form part of the general revenues of the State.

(3.) The legal proposition enunciated by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not disputed. The plea raised by the State Government is that the increase in the licence/renewal fee has been necessitated to meet the expenses incurred for service rendered.