- (1.) MR . P.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has urged only two points while assailing the judgment of the learned single Judge: Firstly, that the resolution as passed by the DaltonganJ Municipality in terms of Section 82 (2) of Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922, was not collectively made through the Commissioners of the Municipality since it was passed by the Finance Committee and, secondly, that the charging of the licence fee could not be done with retrospective effect. On both these counts, we do not agree with his contention for the reasons hereinbelow mentioned.
(2.) FIRST and foremost, the communication dated 6th January, 1990, itself suggests that it was DaltonganJ Municipality which had adopted the resolution for the enhancement of the licence fee. Secondly, even though the minutes of the meeting held on 18.2.1985, do say that the Finance Committee of the Municipality had considered the issue relating to enhancement of the licence fee and resolved to increase it at the rate of Re. 1/ - per sq. ft. per month, Finance Committee could have been delegated this power by the Commissioners because the Finance Committee, in any case, is an organ of the Municipality. In so far as the retrospectivity question is concerned, sub -section (2) of Section 82 of Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 clearly authorizes the Municipality to charge fee in respect of issue and the renewal of any licence. The resolution charging the fee at the rate of Re. 1/ - per sq. ft. per month was adopted on 18.2.1985. Since the charging of the fee by the Municipality has to be in accordance with the scale of fee to be approved by the State Government, it does not mean that if the State Government takes a long enough time, the charging of the fee has to be deferred till the approval is accorded by the State Government. Sub -section (2) of Section 82 (Supra) reads thus; - - "The Commissioners may, from time to time, at a meeting convened as aforesaid, and in accordance with a scale of fees to be approved by the State Government, charge a fee in respect of the issue and renewal of any licence which may be granted by the Commissioners under this Act and in respect for which no fee leviable under Sub -section (1)."
(3.) AS will be noticed, the expression used as "in accordance with a scale of fees to be approved by the State Government" clearly suggests that the post facto approval of the State Government can also be obtained, because if the intention of the Legislature was to exclude the post - facto approval, the expression used would have been "scale of fees as approved by the State Government." The difference, therefore, between the two expressions "as approved" and "to be approved" is significant. If the legislative intention therefore, was that the post facto approval of the State Government also permissible pending such approval, the Municipality had the jurisdiction to charge the fees, as levied through the resolution adopted in pursuance of Sub - section (2) of Section 82 of the Act.;