M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) ALL these writ petitions involve common question of law and facts thus are decided by this judgment.
(2.) FOR convenience, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1507/1989 are considered. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondents issued schedule of fee for testing and inspection of electrical installations and other services vide Notification at Annexure -1. The respondents enhanced fee by issuing another Notification in the year 1977. It was challenged successfully by the petitioners. The notification enhancing the fee was set aside by this court as it was levied in violation of provisions of law. The respondents accordingly charged fee at the rate initially prescribed vide Annexure -1. They came with the Notification dated 2nd February, 1988 and revised the fee for testing and inspection of electrical installations and other services. The enhancement of fee was due to revision of pay scale and other benefit to the employees involved for those services. The enhancement was thus made on erroneous grounds. The fee can be levied to the extent of expenses incurred for the services or facilities.
(3.) IN the instant case, the respondents have enhanced the fee taking note of increase in salaries of the employees and other such similar components which includes payment of gratuity, PF, etc. Those components cannot be taken for determination of the actual expenses incurred for services/facilities rendered to the petitioners. The respondents thus committed illegality in enhancing the fee. To support the arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has given reference of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kewal Krishan Puri v. State of Punjab, reported in : (1980) 1 SCC 416. Referring to Paras 52 and 53 of the said judgment, learned counsel submitted that expenses required to be incurred by the other agencies cannot be accounted to determine the fee. The amount incurred for construction of the road was shown to be for the purpose of facility to the licensees. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that construction of the road is the work to be carried out by the PWD thus for their expenses, justification to enhance the fee cannot be allowed. Any expenses incurred for other agencies cannot justify enhancement of fee. In view of the above, the impugned notification dated 2nd February, 1988 so as demand raised by the respondents be set aside.;