- (1.) M. Katju, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Gazette Notification Annexure 1 to the writ petition by which the Nagar Nigam, Allahabad has framed bye-laws for insurance companies apart from Nursing Homes, Vehicles and trades and has prescribed licence fee. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner is a public sector undertaking doing insurance business. By means of the impugned bye-laws which was published in U. P. Gazette dated 30-1-1999 the Nagar Nigam, Allahabad has imposed licence fee of Rs. 12,000/- on the insurance companies including the petitioner which is doing business inter- alia at Allahabad. In pursuance of the said bye-laws the respondent has sent notices dated 15-3-99 Annexures 2, 3 and 4 to the petition to the three branches of the petitioner company. It is alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under the U. P. Nagar Nigam Adhiniyam, 1959, there is no power under Section 541 to issue such bye-laws or demand or levy licence fee from the petitioner. A Division Bench in Chakresh Kumar Jain v. State of U. P. , 2001 (3) UPLBEC 2483, as already upheld the bye-laws framed by the Nagar Palika Parishad for regulating and requiring licence fee from Nursing Home, private clinic etc. Another Division Bench in Doctor's Jan Kalyan Society v. State of U. P. , 1999 ACJ 1016, has also upheld similar bye-laws. We have, however to consider as to whether this petition is distinguishable or not.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the business of insurance is within Union list of the Constitution of India,1950 vide Entry 43 of List I of Schedule 7, whereas the power of licencing is given to the State under Entry 66 of the State List. He has submitted that since the business of insurance is not in the State List it cannot be taxed or regulated by the State Government or under any State Act. We do not agree. In M/s. Naveen Gun House v. State of U. P. , 2002 (2) AWC 894, the question was whether stamp duty can be demanded for issuing arms licence. It was urged in that case that the Arms Act come under the Union List Entry V and hence no stamp duty can be levied by the State Legislature for issuing licence for arms. This submission was repealed by the Division Bench of this Court which relied upon the doctrine of 'pith and substance' and held that since stamp duty is levable under Entry 44 of List III hence it was validly levied by the State. On the same reasoning we are of the opinion that the State Legislature can authorize levying of licence fee on insurance companies.;