Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

As one of the questions involved in the appeal related to the ,constitutional validity of the provisions of a State enactment, notice of this appeal was served on the State. Mr. Pathak learned Counsel for the appellant Corporation did not contest the finding and decision of both the learned Single Judge as well as the learned Judges in appeal, that if what s. 548 (2) of the Act authorised was only a fee in the technical sense, viz., a payment for service rendered as distinguished from a tax, the impugned levy was invalid in as much as there was admittedly no correlation between the amount of the levy and the cost of the service, if any rendered to the fee-payer. His submissions in support of the validity of the impugned levy were : (1) An analysis of the several provisions of the Act showed that the Act employed the word "fee" and particularly in the context of a fee for licences granted for carrying on an activity, in the sense of a tax., (2) the fee permitted to be charged for licences by s. 548 (2) of the Act was not a fee but a tax as it was not a quid pro quo for services which the Corporation was required by or under the Act to render or did render to the licensee., (3) A fee charged for a licence other than a fee for services rendered is in reality a tax and no quid pro quo is necessary to sustain its validity beyond the grant of the licence and a permission to carry on the activity which the licence authorises., (4) If what was permitted to be charged by S. 548 (2) were a tax, the provision is not unconstitutional for the reason that the rate of the fee was not specified in the Act. The non- specification in the Act of the rate of the licence fee to be charged is not open to the objection of excessive delegation of legislative power for two reasons : (1) For considering whether there has been an excessive delegation, regard must be had not merely to the section conferring the power but to the other provisions of the Act as well which might throw light upon the topic and from which sufficient enunciation of principle or guidance could be gathered. In the present case there was sufficient guidance available and proper standards laid down in the other provisions of the Act as to uphold the validity of the delegation., (2) When a delegation of legislative power including legislative power to impose a tax is conferred upon a Municipal Corporation, no question of excessive delegation arises as the Constitution itself permits and authorizes such devolution ,of legislative power.

In view of these submissions it is necessary to consider and ascertain principally 4 matters : (1) the precise nature of a fee, as distinguished from a tax., (2) Whether on an examination of the several provisions of the Act the charge authorised to be levied by s. 548 (2) read with s. 443 of the Act, is a fee in that or is it a tax., (3) If what is permitted to be levied by s. 548(2) is not a fee out a tax whether the various provisions of the Act read independently or together enunciate the principles, prescribe the standards, and affords sufficient guidance to the Municipality to fix the rate so as to render the conferment of the power free the from the vice of excessive delegation; and (4) lastly, whether the rule as to excessive delegation of legislative power is inapplicable in those cases where the devolution or conferment of power is on a municipal corporation, or, in any event, whether the rule as to excessive delegation needs substantial modification before the same is applied to a case where the donee of the power is a municipal corporation entrusted with local self government.

(3)Assuming s. 548 permits the levy of a far, is the provision Constitutional ?

In this view no other question would arise. In view, however, of the elaborate arguments addressed to us by Mr. Pathak on the other parts of the case and particularly since the learned Judges of the High Court have devoted considerable parts of their judgment to dealing with them we propose to examine the submissions of learned Counsel under that head also. On the footing that what was permitted to be levied by s. 548(2) was a tax the submission of learned Counsel was, as already stated, two-fold : (1) that in the case of devolution of legislative or quasi legislative power to a Municipal Corporation a different criteria for determining excessive delegation has to be adopted and that having regard to the terms of Entry 5 of List II no conferment of a power in favour of a municipality which is germane to municipal administration or local self government can be held to be beyond the legislative power of the State., and (2) *,bat even if the above were not accepted, the Act itself laid down in sufficiently definite terms the prin- ciples upon which the rate of fee was to be determined and afforded' sufficient guidance for its determination, that the provision did not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation.

On the terms of this entry emphasis was laid on the words "powers of municipal corporations" and "for the purpose of local self-government" for which the municipal corporations and other bodies specified were to be constituted. Relying on the words underlined he urged: (1) that the Constitution empowered the devolution on municipal corporations of all powers which were needed for the purpose of local self- government. If, therefore, a power of taxation was conferred upon a municipal corporation, that devolution of power was sanctioned by the Constitution and so was outside the rule against excessive delegation of Legislative power. The argument was even pitched higher and it was said that the expression "powers" occurring in the entry enabled the State Legislature to confer upon municipal corporations not merely all the powers which the State Legislature itself could exercise under the several legislative entries in Lists II and 111, but even powers outside those Lists provided they were necessary for the purposes of local self-government. It was suggested that having regard to the great object of decentralisation of power which was achieved by setting up institutions for the purpose of local self-government the Constitution had vested in the State Legislatures complete and plenary powers necessary for effectuating the setting up of such bodies and endowing them with the capacity to achieve their object. If entry 5 was construed in this manner the conferment of power to tax by s. 548 (2) of the Act could not be challenged as unconstitutional. To examine this argument closely it would be convenient to split it up into two parts : (1) whether by reason of a provision for legislation as regards the "power" of municipal corporation,$ the rule as to unconstitutionality arising from excessive delegation of legislative power becomes inapplicable, and (2) whether the powers which were permitted to be conferred on municipal corporations extend beyond those open to the State Legislatures themselves to exercise under the relevant entries in the Seventh Schedule. We shall take up the second question first. Learned Counsel was driven to put forward an argument in this form that powers to be conferred upon municipal corporations need not necessarily be confined to the legislative powers of the State Legislatures under other entries, because of the difficulty he experienced in sustaining the plea that every fee for a written permission or for licence permitted by s. 548 (2) of the Act could be related to particular entries as to taxation which alone are permitted to the States by the distribution of legislative power under the Seventh Schedule. For instance, it was pointed out during the course of the argument that the purposes for which a written permission was necessary and a licence was required to be taken embraced a wide variety of subjects and if s. 548 (2) were held to authorise the levy of a tax in respect of each of those activities for which a permission was needed or a licence was required to be taken, it would not be possible to relate such a tax to any of the taxation entries in List 11, that is, entries 45 to 63. Thus S. 297 of the Act provides that without the written permission of the Commissioner no private streets shall be constructed and under s. 548 (2) a fee may be charged for the granting of the written permission. It is not possible to relate the fee to be charged for this permission under any of the heads of taxation in List 11. Of course, if it were a fee under entry 66, it would fall under that entry read with entry 5, entry 6-public health and sanitation-as well as entry 13- Communications, that is to say, roads, bridges etc. Very many more illustrations of this sort to some of which we have adverted earlier, were pointed out during the course of the argument and learned Counsel suggested that some of them might fall under the head of "lands and buildings". But the regulation of an activity for carrying on a business in certain premises and which are dealt with in Chapter XXVI of the Act--"Inspection and Regulation of Premises, and of Factories" cannot be equated with the subject-matter of a tax on land and buildings which are specifically dealt with by s. 165 which reads :