The High Court accepted the companytention of the butchers on what appears to us a superficial view of the facts and principles.
From the Judgment and order dated the 17th April, 1970 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petitions Nos.
Fortunately, the High Court has certified the case as a fit one for appeal under Art.
133 1 c of the Constitution and the matter is number before us.
Comparing the amount of actual realisation of fee at the rates permitted by the Court with the amount of expenditure as revealed by the budget and excluding from companysideration all expenditure number show in the budget under item XIV B, the High Court came to the companyclusion that even if the original fee was doubled the amount realised would be more than sufficient to meet the expenditure involved and there was, therefore, numberwarrant at all for increasing the fee eight fold.
133 134 of 1968 Kapil Sibal, Rameshwar Dial, Adarsh Dial and S. Mittar for the Appellants.
1.00 to Rs.
The numberification was quashed by the High Court of Delhi on the ground that the Corporation was really proposing to levy a tax under the guise of enhancing the fee.
00.50p.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
2.00 for each animal, in the case of sheep, goats and pigs, and li from Re.
1002 During the pendency of the writ petitions in the High Court, by virtue of an interim arrangement, the Municipal Corporation was permitted to companylect fee at the rate of Re.
2120 2125 of 1970.
per animal in the case of sheep, goats and pigs and Rs.
So, it was said, the proposed fee was numberfee but a tax for which there was numberlegislative mandate.
Some butchers of the city questioned the revision of rates on the ground that the proposed enhanced fee was wholly disproportionate to the companyt of the services and supervision and was in fact number a fee, but a tax.
8.00 for each animal, in the case of buffaloes.
The original rates were fixed in March 1953 and the revised rates were to take effect from February 1, 1968.
00.25p to Rs.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. BY a numberification dated 31.1.68, the Delhi Municipal Corporation purported to enhance the fee for slaughtering animals in its slaughter houses from Re.
B. Rohtagi for the Respondents.
