Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)
Anoop Kumar Jaiswal And Another vs State Of U.P. Through Secy. Nagar Vikas ... on 29 May, 2013
cites
Kishan Lal Lakhmi Chand And Ors. vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 29 July, 1993
In view of the aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s Kishan Lal Lakhmi Chand vs. State of Haryana, there may be a regulatory fee and a compensatory fee. In the cases of licence fee, which is a regulatory fee, the condition of quid pro quo is not necessary. It would, therefore, appear that a provision for the imposition of licence fee does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the fee must be only for services rendered."
Section 114 in The U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 [Entire Act]
P.Kannadasan Etc. Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Etc. Etc on 26 July, 1996
In P. Kannadasan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2560, the Supreme Court observed that there is no need for any element of quid pro quo in a regulatory fee.
State Of Tripura & Ors vs Sudhir Ranjan Nath on 13 February, 1997
The Supreme Court took the same view in the State of Tripura and Ors. v. Sudhir Ranjan Nath, AIR 1997 SC 1168. Regulatory fees are charged because staff has to be engaged for enforcing the regulations, and their salaries have to be paid and other expenses incurred in this connection. In view of the above clear legal position, the case laws relied upon by the petitioners are of no avail to them.