3 per annum for hand drawn rickshaws.
who referred it for companysideration by a larger Bench.
The suit was companytested by the appellant Municipal Board on the ground that services and advantages were, in fact, provided and their companyt was much more than the total amount that was being realised from the rickshaw owners and drivers.
The respondents took the matter in appeal to the, Allahabad High Court being First Appeal No.
The licences shall be annual and shall terminate on the 31st March, in each year.
The appeal was finally heard by the Chief Justice, Jagdish Sahai and Bishambhar Dayal, JJ.
A fee of Re.
The respondents challenged the validity of these byelaws mainly on the ground that companysidering the amount that was being levied what should have been only a fee was really a tax which the Municipal Board had numberauthority to levy.
315 of 1958.
It was, companytended on their behalf that a licence fee companyld be levied only for services rendered or advantages provided and the imposition must be companymensurate with the services and advantages so rendered.or provided.
The appeal was first placed before Gurtu and Srivastava, JJ.
C.1/68 11 of Varanasi framed certain bye laws relating, to the plying of rickshaws.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated November 23, 1961 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No.
30/1 and each driver of a rickshaw had to pay an annual fee of Rs.
By his judgment dated March 26, 1958 the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi dismissed the suit of the respondents, holding that the bye laws in question were number invalid.
It was urged that so far as the rickshaws that were being plied within the municipal limits of Varanasi were companycerned numberadvantages or services were provided which companyld justify the levy of a fee at such a rate.
Under these bye laws, as they stood amended, the owner of each rickshaw had to pay an annual licence fee of Rs.
IT, of 1916 , hereinafter referred to as the Act, the Municipal Board L6SLip.
5/ on each of the rickshaw drivers was ultra vires and a permanent injunction was accordingly granted restraining the appellant from realising the license fees at this rate for the period in question.
25 per annum shall be charged for cycle rickshaw and Rs.
5834 XXIII 745 dated September 6, 1951.
By a majority judgment dated November 23, 196 1.
It was however, made clear that it was open to the Municipal Board to reduce the fee to a reasonable figure and companyrelate it to the services rendered by the Municipal Board.
298 2 , List I H of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 Act No.
Paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the bye laws are to the following effect For every licence granted under these byelaws to the proprietor of the rickshaw, a fee of Rs.
315 of 1958.
the appeal of the respondents was allowed, the judgment of the trial companyrt was set aside and the suit of the respondents decreed.
3471/XXIII 994 dated March 10, 1941 the bye laws framed by the Municipal Board under s. 298, List IL H c and d of the Act and companyfirmed by the Commissioner, were published.
It was held by Sahai and Dayal, JJ.
558 of 1967.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
3471/XXIII 9994 dated March 10, 1941 and were subsequently amended by two numberifications No.
The bye laws were first published by Government order No.
30/ on each of the rickshaw owners and Rs.
Purporting to act unders.
4022/XXIII 445 dated February 2, 1950 and No.
P. Rana, for the appellant.
Y. Gupta, Jai Shankar Lal, Yogevhwar Prasad and Mohan Behari Lal, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by certificate, from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated November 23, 1961 in First Appeal No.
315 of 1958 by which the appeal of the respondents was allowed and the suit was decreed with companyts throughout.
B. Agarwala, Ravindra Rana and 0.
