Amar Nath Varma, J. - (1.) THOUGH this petition was originally filed by several petitioners but on an objection taken by the respondent the petition was confined only to the claim of Shyam Behari Mathur, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the imposition of licence -fee by the Zila Parishad, Mainpuri on the petitioner who is a private owner of cattle fair and market held within the local limits of Zila Parishad, Mainpuri. The licence -fee is being realised from the petitioner for running cattle fair and market within the said local limits.
(2.) IN the petition the main ground urged is that the Zila Parishad is not rendering any service to the petitioner who is making his own arrangement for private market and fair held by him over his own land and consequently the Zila Parishad is not entitled to levy such licence -fee. In the counter -affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Zila Parishad, assertions of the petitioner have been denied. It is asserted that the Zila Parishad is realising licence -fee for rendering various services to the owners in the running of cattle fair and markets. Thus it is giving them facilities in the shape of dispensaries for providing medical facilities to the animals which are brought for sale in the fairs and markets. Besides the Zila Parishad claims to have constructed one Kilometre long metalled road to connect village Makanpur Newada where the petitioner, Shyam Behari Mathur is running his cattle fair and market at the cost of Rs. 2,24,795.30. In addition the Zila Parishad has also undertaken drinking water project costing about Rs. 17,24,000/ - for which it has already advanced the money to the Jal Nigam which is constructing tubewells and overhead tanks etc. at various places, the benefit of which eventually goes to these markets and fairs. It is further stated that expenditure for maintaining the aforesaid dispensaries by the Zila Parishad runs into thousands of rupees per month whereas income of the Zila Parishad during the last three years was only Rs. 3275/ -. The break -up of this income has also been indicated in para 3 of the supplementary affidavit.
(3.) SRI M.B. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the respondent -Zila Parishad was already running the aforesaid dispensaries and the road, referred to above, was also in existence from before and consequently any amount which may have gone into construction of that road or establishment of the dispensaries could not justify imposition of licence fee.;