SUJATA V. MANOHAR - (1.) IN these proceedings the petitioners are challenging an increase in the licence fee for a trade licence for running a lodging house, hotel, restaurant, coffee house, tea stall, eating house, soft drink stall, cafeteria, tiffin room etc. levied under Section 622 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1965.
(2.) UNDER Section 521(1)(e)(ii) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act of 1955, except under and in conformity with the terms and conditions of a licence granted by the Commissioner no person shall, inter alia, carry on, allow to be carried on, in or upon any premises, any trade or operation which in the opinion of the Commissioner, is dangerous to life, health or property, or is likely to create a nuisance either from its nature, or by reason of the manner in which, or the conditions under which, the same, is or is proposed to be carried on. By an order of the Special Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, dated 15-4-1972 a list of trades, operations etc. covered by Section 521(1)(e)(ii) was notified. The trades so covered include eating houses, hotels, restaurants, Cafes, bars, tea stalls, canteens, coffee houses, tiffin rooms, cafeteria or any place where food is prepared and supplied or sold for the purpose of gain. Lodging houses were also covered. Under Section 622 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 whenever it is provided under the Act that a licence or a written permission may be given for any purpose, such licence or written permission shall specify the period for which and the restrictions and conditions subject to which, the same is granted. Under Section 622(2) for every such licence or written permission a fee may be charged at such rate as shall from time to time be fixed by the Commissioner, with the sanction of the Corporation. Under the said order of 15-4-1972 the licence fees for the said trades were specified/revised. Where the monthly rent of an eating house etc. was up to Rs. 50.00 the rate of licence fee was Rs. 50.00. The licence fees were graded depending upon the rent of the premises. The maximum licence fee where rent was above Rs. 1,000.00 was Rs. 1,000.00. The same was the position with regard to lodging houses where the rates of licence fee varied from Rs. 50.00 to Rs. 1,000.00 depending upon the monthly rent of the premises. The rates so prescribed were higher than the rates in force earlier. This increase was challenged, but was upheld by the High Court. Thereafter the Special Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, by his order dated 6-4-1981 revised these licence fees. The said order, inter alia, stated that in view of the increase of the service charges rendered by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, it was felt necessary to revise the existing scheduled of rates of licence fee fixed under Section 622(2) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. As a result of this revision the licence fee where the monthly rent was up to Rs. 50.00 was increased to Rs. 100.00 and the maximum licence fee where the rent was above 1,500/- but not more than Rs. 2,000.00 was increased to Rs. 2,000.00. In respect of lodging houses the maximum licence fee where the rent was above Rupees 4,000/- but not morethan Rupees 5,000/- was fixed at Rs. 5,000.00. The licence fee was proportionately increased in respect of all categories of lodging houses and eating houses by the said order.
(3.) THE present petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 3055 of 1981 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the increase in the licence fee by the said order of 6-4-1981. THE Learned single Judge upheld the levy and dismissed the writ petition. An appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by the Division Bench. THE Division Bench held that since the Corporation is providing services in the form of inspection by the officials of the premises of the petitioners, and is also providing general services like lifting of garbage in the whole city for which staff is required, the Corporation is providing services though general in nature, to the persons or traders. THE levy is not a tax. It upheld the levy as a fee. Civil Appeal Nos. 1811 and 1812 of 1988 are against the said judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. In 1987 the respondent Corporation again revised and increased licence fees. The said increase is under challenge before the High Court. Thereafter by an order dated 12-10-1991 the respondent-Corporation again increased the licence fees of eating houses and lodging houses. The increase was four times the licence fee fixed in 1987. However, on 25-7-1992 the respondents have reduced this increase on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the Corporation and several groups of affected traders. The increased licence fee under the order of 25-7-1992 is twice the licence fee charged under the order of 1987. The petitioners were not parties to the compromise. They have filed Writ Petition No. 238 of 1992 in this Court under Article 32 challenging the increased licence fee under the orders of 1992. Since common questions of law arise in all these proceedings they have been heard together. A chart showing the increase of licence fee for lodgings and eating houses from time to time is set out below:- JUDGEMENT_274_2_1999Html1.htm ;