- (1.) - Delay condoned.
(2.) Special leave granted.
(3.) The apellant, placing reliance on Bye-law 26(iv) of the Gauhati Municipal Corporation (Licencing of Rickshaw and Rickshaw Puller) Bye-laws 1976 ('the Bye-laws') contends that the local authority was not competent to recover licence fee in excess of Rs. 10 p.a. for the renewal of the owner's rickshaw licence. Bye-law 26(iv) prescribes the licence fees and transfer fees in respect of owner's licence for a cycle rickshaw or rickshaw van at Rs. 20/-per annum, Puller's licence for cycle rickshaw at Rs. 10/- per annum. Renewal of puller's licence for a cycle rickshaw at Rs. 10/- per annum, renewal of owner's licence for a rickshaw at Rs. 1 0/ - per annum and Transfer fee at Rs. 5 per case. The appellant contends that in view of this bye-law the demand for renewal of licence fee at Rs. 20 / - per annum is not legally justified. Therefore writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed challenging the demand made by the Municipal Corporation. That writ petition was heard by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court which came to the conclusion that the demand was justified as bye-law 26(iv) must be taken to have been amended by the Corporation's resolution dated 30th July, 1974. In this view that the High Court too, the writ petition was dismissed and the interim order was vacated. Against this decision of the High Court, the appellant has approached this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. By an interim order of this Court, the appellant was directed to continue to pay the licence fee at the rate of Rs. 10/- per annum. We have now heard learned Counsel for both sides on merits and we are of the opinion that the conclusion reached by the High Court does not demand any interference at our hands though for different reasons. We will briefly state the reasons for upholding the demand made by the local authority.;