Yatindra Singh, J. - (1.) Doctors' Jan Kalyan Society. (petitioner for short) is an association of the Allopathic, Homoeopathic, Ayurvedic and Unani doctors. It has filed the present writ petition challenging the bye-laws ('the bye-laws' for short) framed by Nagar Palika Parlshad. Mirzapur ('the Nagar Palika' for short) under Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 ('the Act' for convenience). It is covered by the Act. The Bye-laws provide for licence fee on the Nursing Home. Private Clinic, Pathology Centre, Dental Clinic, X-Ray Clinic and Maternity wards. FACTS
(2.) The State Government, in order to augment the financial resources of the local bodies, had issued a direction on 27.9.1994 to increase the licence fee or to impose licence fee in case it is not so imposed on the matters mentioned therein. The present licence fee is also one of the items mentioned therein. Subsequently, another similar direction was again issued on 23.12.1994 and then a reminder was sent on 21.3.1995. The administrator of the Nagar Palika passed a special resolution on 28.8.1995 to frame the bye-laws. The proposed bye-laws were published in the Newspaper "Jai Prakash" on 25.9.1995 and objections were invited within fifteen days. No objections were received. The matter was then placed before the Nagar Palika. But the resolution to frame the bye-laws and impose licence fee was rejected in the meeting dated 27.2.1996. An agenda dated 9.8.1996 for approving the bye-laws was circulated, fixing the meeting on 16.8.1996. This meeting was within six months of the earlier meeting. In this meeting, the resolution to enforce the bye-laws from the date of publication was passed. These bye-laws were published in the Official Gazette on 18.2.1997 and were enforced from that date. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
(3.) We have heard the counsel for the parties.2 Following points arise for determination in this case : (i) Section 34 (1B) of the Act-empowers the State Government to prohibit the execution of the resolution. Should writ petition be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy? (ii) Section 298 empowers the Municipality to make bye-laws. Whether the impugned bye-laws are beyond the power of the Nagar Palika to frame the bye-laws under Section 298 of the Act? (iii) Section 94 (6) of the Act prescribes condition when a resolution of a Municipality can be modified or cancelled within six months. Whether these conditions were satisfied? Whether Section 94 (6), applies even In case where the bye-laws have been framed in pursuance of the direction given by the State Government? 1st Point--ALTERNATIVE REMEDY;