R. P. Singh, J. - (1.) THESE are four connected writ petitions in which common question of facts and law are involved and hence they are disposed of together.
(2.) COMING to the facts of Writ Petition No. 292 of 1985, the petitioners who are residents of Tuniyas in the District of Pithoragrah, have challenged the levy of fee of Rs. 6,500/- on the petitioner no. 1 and Rs. 2,800/- on the petitioner no. 2 respectively by the Zila Parishad, Pithoragath on account of their having a shop in a portion of their house, which is situate about 1 1/2 kms. from Purnagiri temple where a mela is held every year after Holi and it continues upto Ram Navami. The petitioners case is that they had never taken any land in auction from the Zila Parishad nor opened any shop in the mela area and that they have constructed a house in Tuniyas, which is at a distance of 1 1/2 kms. from Purnagiri temple, where the mela is held and in the front portion of their house, they keep some sweets and prepare tea and other etables for the customers who pass through the way on way to Purnagiri temple and in March, 1980, when the petitioners received notice from the Zila Parishad directing them to pay Rs. 6,500/- and Rs. 2,800/- respectively as fee or rent on account of the mela held in Purnagiri Devi mela area, they made enquiries from the Zila Parishad authorities how such a high amount is. being demanded from them even though they have not been allotted any shop on any land owned by the Zila Parishad in the mela area. The petitioners' case is that since two persons from the area were arrested for non-payment of the mela tax and hence the petitioners were compelled to deposit Rs. 6,500/- and Rs. 2,800/- respectively. However, the petitioners again received a notice in May, 1981 demanding the same amount for the succeeding year and the petitioners have been forced to pay the amount arbitrarily even though their shop is situate in their own house at a distance of 11/2 kms. from the mela area and neither the petitioners have been allotted any shop in the mela area nor they are provided any facilities and hence this arbitrary demand of the amount from them is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioners' further case is that in May, 1982, the amount demanded as mela tax of fee had been increased to Rs. 9,750/- from the petitioner no. 1 and Rs. 4,200/- from the petitioner no. 2 and that coersive steps were taken to realise the amount from the petitioners on the threat of their being arrested and the petitioners were forced to pay the amount, which is wholly arbitrary and without any service being rendered by the Zila Parishad to them. The case of the Zila Parishad, Pithoragarh as disclosed in the counter affidavit, is that under section 239-H (d) and (1) of the U. P. Kshetriya Samiti and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961, the Zila Parishad has framed bye-laws, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 5 to the counter affidavit under which the Zila Parishad is entitled to impose the fee for regulating the fairs and industrial exhibitions within the rural area of the district under a control of the Parishad and hence the fee has been validly imposed on the petitioners, as the amount collected from the fee is spent in making various arrangements in connection with the holding of the fair and industrial exhibition and that even though the shop of the petitioners may not be situate in the mela area itself on the land owned by Zila Parishad, but since the shop is situate on the way to the Purnagiri temple mela where sweets and other articles are sold to the pilgrims coming to the mela, hence the fee has been validly imposed under the bye-laws framed by the Zila Parishad. Its case further is that in the past Tuniyas Sudhar Samiti, a registered society had agreed to contribute towards the expenses for the holding of the mela and the petitioners were the members of this society and hence the petitioners were bound to pay the amount demanded from them as fee and it was only in 1980 that the Tuniyas Sudhar Samiti ceased to function and hence, the amount is being levied on the petitioners under the bye-laws framed by the Zila Parishad under section 239-H (2) of the aforesaid Act and the amount collected thereby, is being spent in making various arrangements for holding the fair and hence there is no illegality in the imposition of the fee on the petitioners. Learned counsel for Zila Parishad, Sri Ashok Khare further submitted that there need not be exact co-relation between the amount of fee realised and the cost incurred in providing services to the petitioners and the said services may not" necessarily confer special advantage to the payers of the fees and hence the levy of the amount on the petitioners cannot be challenged on the ground that there is no quid pro quo and direct relation between the fees and the services rendered.
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record and the bye-laws framed by the Zila Parishad, we find that the bye laws do not provide for levy of any amount on the shopkeepers. The bye-laws do provide for regulating the holding of the mela and the various steps that the Zila Parishad may take for administering the mela but the basis on which the fees may by levied on the shopkeepers and the basis on which the rates may vary, has not been provided in the bye-laws. In fact, towards the end of the bye-laws a list of items have been provided, giving the rates at which the fees may be imposed on them. The list of the items and the rate as given in the bye-laws are reproduced below : SUCHI 1.Motor Lory 500 rupees prati pheri 2.Bailgadi ' 50 paise prati pheri 3.Ghoda 1 rupee prati pheri 4.Ghondo ki vikri par 2 rupees prati saikada 5.Sir par ka bogh 10 paisa prati bhog 6.Bail, Gai, Bhains ki vikri par 2 rupees prati saikada 7.Pheri ke saman bachene par 1 rupee pratidin 8.Cinema, Sarkas, bioscope 10 rupees prati ratri 9.Vyaparika uddesh se maik (loudspeaker) lagane par 25 rupees pratidin 10.Nai 1 rupee pratidin 11.Aneya bastuyon par mela samiti dwara nirdharit dar se shulk liya javega. " Sd/- Anand Kumar Singh Ayukt, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital. Learned counsel for the Zila Parishad justified the levy of fee on the shop keepers who carry on the sweet-meat shops in the mela on the argument that the amplitude of section 239 is very wide and confers power on the Zila Parishad to regulate a mela, and in exercise of the power of regulation, fee could be imposed by the Zila Parishad on the shopkeepers as well. For the purpose of the present case, it may be accepted that the Zila Parishad could impose fee in the market owned by private individuals and for the levy of fee it is not necessary that the shops in which business is done during Mela period for the sale of sweet-meats for human consumption must be a market owned and possessed by the Zila Parishad. The Zila Parishad may regulate the business which is carried on in the shops owned by the persons living in the locality itself. However, in the present case, we find that the case of the shop keepers does not specifically fall in the list on which any fee could be imposed.;