PRAKASH TATIA,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties finally. The intra -Court appeal has been preferred questioning increase in license fees from Rs. 20/ - to Rs. 35/ - vide notification dated 12.8.2002 issued by the State Government. The same has been held to be regulatory by the single Bench and not compensatory and it cannot be termed as tax. The amendment made vide notification dated 12.8.2002 has been held to be constitutionally valid.
(2.) THE Petitioner filed writ application assailing increase of the license fees on the hoardings/signboards installed on private buildings/lands. It was submitted that in Jaipur Advertising Service v. Municipal Council and Ors. (C.W.P. No. 346/1978), this Court on 10.8.1989 held that increase in the license fees was nothing, but in a form of tax and the same is not only illegal, but is unjustified and thereby increase of the rate was declared to be illegal. The Dy. Secretary, Local Self Department, Jaipur issued an order on 30.3.2000 directing the Municipal Corporation to fix the license fee for putting up hoardings/ signboards on private buildings, which should not be less than Rs. 30/ - per sq. feet per annum. A writ petition was filed by the Petitioner being CWP No. 1406/2000, which was pending. The Petitioner has installed hoardings/ signboards against the provisions of Municipal Corporation, Jaipur (Advertisement) Bye -Laws, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'bye -laws of 1974' for short). The case of the Respondent was that the license fees was rightly increased by amending the bye -laws of 1974. No legal right of the Petitioner has been infringed. The Corporation has to take care of the cleanliness of the city including sewerage and proper lighting on the streets, it has to incur expenditure for various services rendered by it. Thus, a reasonable fees has been levied, which cannot be said to be tax.
(3.) THE Single Bench has held that the license fees realized is regulatory in nature. There need not be any element of quid pro quo. In such circumstances, reliance has been placed on the various Supreme Court decisions by the Single Bench. Writ application has been dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the intra -court appeal has been preferred. Shri M.S. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant along with Shri Vinay Kothari submitted that this is a compensatory fees, which is recovered. There has to be quid pro quo. The Division Bench of this Court held that license fees recovered is compensatory one. Subsequently, increase from Rs. 20/ - in the year 1984 to Rs. 35/ - in the year 2002 could not be said to be permissible in the absence of quid pro quo. Learned Counsel has further submitted that in Jindal Stainless Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors. ( : (2006) 7 SCC 241), it was held that it is necessary to establish the quid pro quo, which has not been established in the instant case. The Single Bench has illegally held that it was not necessary to establish the aforesaid aspect. The fees could not be said to be regulatory one.;