MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions are disposed of by this common order as the common question for decision is involved in these matters.

(2.) Writ Petition No. 2924/90 is filed by the petitioner Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd., Pali and the Writ Petition No. 2791/91 is filed by the petitioner Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. Both the petitioners have challenged in these petitions the exhorbitant enhancement of fees for testing and inspection of the petitioners' installation from the year 1977-78 and onwards. Except the service number, connected load and number of machinery connected to it rest of the particulars in both the petitions are same. The petitioners were required to pay the fees for testing and inspection of its installation under the provisions of notification dated 25-8-59 published in Govt. Gazette dated 27-8-59 made effective from 1-1-1959 by the State Govt. which provides that fees shall be charged in accordance with the scales prescribed in the Schedule to the notification dated 17-4-1956 published in Gazette dated 26-5-1956. The petitioners were required to pay the inspection fees initially at the rate prescribed under the old notification which is enhanced subsequently by notifications dated 16-6-1977 and 10-3-1988, Exs. 3 and 4 respectively. Exh. 7 and 8 are the demand notices in Writ Petition No. 2924/90 and Exs. 5 and 6 are demand notices in Writ Petition No. 2791/91. After the issuance of notification dated 16-6-1977 (Ex.3) the State Govt. issued another notification dated 10-3-1988 (Ex.4) enhancing the fees of Electrical Inspection of the premises of the customers. According to the petitioners it was exhorbitant enhancement in the inspection fees. The petitioners have, therefore, challenged both the notifications dated 16-6-1977 (Ex.3) and 10-3-1988 (Ex.4) and the impugned demand notice issued against them as per the aforesaid notifications and also prayed that the respondents may be directed to refund the excess amount recovered from them under the impugned notifications dated 16-6-1977 and 10-3-1988, Exs. 3 and 4 respectively.

(3.) Both the learned Counsel Shri M. S. Singhvi and Shri B. L. Purohit for the petitioners submit-ted that no quid pro quo has been shown to justify the enhancement in the fees has to be accepted for want of any attempt on behalf of the respondents to justify the enhancement and the increase of this fees is so exorbitant particularly when the services rendered is the same and the installation remains the same. Therefore, it was submitted that in absence of any material produced to justify the enhancement, the vast difference in the amounts is by itself sufficient to indicate that there is no quid pro quo and the enhancement is arbitrary. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned notifications as well as the impugned demand notices be quashed and set aside. In support of their contention both the learned Counsels have relied upon the Supreme Court decision reported in (i) AIR 1986 SC 726, Om Prakash Agarwal v. V. Giri Raj Kishori; and (ii) AIR 1986 SC 1930, The District Council of the Jowai Autonomous Distt., Jowai v. Dwet Singh Rymbai; and the unreported judgment of Division Bench of this Court delivered on 29th July, 1988 in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 334/1978 and other writ petitions.