MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There were six draftsmen in the year 1978 in Pali. Each one of them was given licence. Yearly licence fee was Rs. 15/-. The respondent No. 3 Hasti Mal was one of those six draftsmen who was also paying yearly licence fee of Rs. 15/-. The petitioner is Municipal Council, Pali which was charging Rs. 15/- per year towards licence fee from the draftsmen since number of years and continued to charge the same till 31-3-76. However, the licence fee of Rs. 15/- was raised to Rs. 250/- per year with effect from 1-4-76 as per the order at Annex. 1. By letter dated 30-5-78 (Annex. 2), it was brought to the notice of Executive Officer of the petitioner Municipality that the enhanced licence fee has not been deposited by the licencee, therefore, it was recommended that till they do not deposit the requisite fee, the plans submitted by them should not be approved. The then Administrator of the petitioner municipality called all the licencees including the respondent No. 3 for discussion. On 3-6-78, all the draftsmen including respondent No. 3 Hasti Mal agreed to submit final reply within 15 days and thereupon it was agreed that their plans may not be returned. However, the same was not done, therefore, on 23-6-78, the same was brought to the notice of the Executive Officer and it was stated that they may be called to remain present on 26-6-78 at 3.00 p.m. (Annexure. 3). On 27-6-78, the petitioner Municipality issued notice to all the draftsmen including respondent No. 3 calling upon them to deposit the outstanding fees upto 30-6-78 failing which the plan prepared by them would not be accepted from 1-7-78.

(2.) Thereafter, all the licencees deposited the outstanding fee of Rs. 250/- per year but the respondent No. 3 submitted an application on 29-8-78 to the effect that the enhanced licence fee may not be charged from him. His application was dismissed by the petitioner Municipality on 4-10-78 (Annex. 5). It was challenged by the respondent No. 3 by way of revision before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur who accepted his revision as per the order dated 9-1-90 (Annex. 6). The same is challenged by the petitioner Municipality by way of this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel Mr. Bhandari for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner was entitled to charge licence fee, therefore, Rs. 15/- per year was charged from all the draftsman till 1976. Later on it was agreed to enhance the same to Rs. 250/- per year. Having agreed, the respondent No. 3 back out and challenged the same before the Additional Divisional Commissioner who has without properly understanding the same allowed the revision petition. He submitted that the Additional Divisional Commissioner was wholly wrong in holding that there were no Rules or Regulations for enhancing licence fees, therefore, it cannot be enhanced. As against that the learned counsel Mr. Rajpurohit for the respondent No. 3 submitted that the Additional Divisional Commissioner was fully justified in allowing the revision petition because in absence of any Rules and Regulations, the licence fees cannot be imposed and it cannot be enhanced.