W. Broome, J. - (1.) THE question referred to this Bench for decision runs as follows: Is the 'licensing fee' levied under the bye -laws framed by the Municipal Board of Moradabad as per Notification No. 48/XXIII -79, dated 17 -10 -1929, as amended upto date, a 'fee' in lieu of services to be rendered and is quid pro quo an element of the same?
(2.) IT is admitted that, as the material on record stands at present, there is no proof that the licensing fee in question that is levied by the Municipal Board of Moradabad is a fee in lieu of, services to be rendered or that there is any quid pro quo involved. Our answer to the question submitted to us therefore is in the negative. We express no opinion as to whether it would be proper at this stage to allow the Municipal Board to lead evidence to show that there is a quid pro quo and that services are to be rendered commensurate with the amount charged. We may further observe that in the referring order it is mentioned that same doubt has been cast on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Durga Das Bhattacharya v. Municipal Board, Varanasi : 1962 AWR (J) 39 (1): AIR 1962 All. 277, in view of certain subsequent pronouncements of the Supreme Court; but during the pendency of this reference, that Full Bench case was actually affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 558 of 1967, decided on 4 -3 -1968.;