IMPORTANT POINTS
Municipal Commissioner is empowered to specify conditions and restrictions and charges therefor while grating trade licence.
In absence of challenge to the validity, Court would not go into vires of the provisions.
Delegation of power to tax to the local body without providing a maximum rate does not by itself render the delegation excessive or invalid; willingness or consent of the person concerned is immaterial.
Increasing TRC by 10% every year from 2009 irrespective of the nature of business carried on by the Licencee held highly arbitrary.

Headnote:(a) Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – Section 394 and 479 – Disposal of trade refuse – Commissioner empowered to specify conditions and restrictions and charges therefor while grating trade licence. (Para 17)
       (b) Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – Section 394 – Trade Refuse charge – Raised by almost 300% of trade licence fee – To be collected at the time of renewal of trade licence – Rates reduced considerably at intervention of High Court – Validity of the provisions not challenged – Rationality of the rate fixed for levy of TRC challenged – Contention of it being arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India – Upheld. (Para 21, 30)
       (c) Administration of Justice – Validity of Act – Not challenged – Court would not go into vires of the provisions – Section 368 etc. of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. (Para 22
       (d) Taxing laws – Fee – Levy of – Must be in consideration of some special services rendered or work done – Fee must be appropriated for the purpose levied and not to be used for other general public purpose – Power to levy tax may be delegated – Delegation of power to tax to the local body without providing a maximum rate – Does not by itself render the delegation excessive or invalid – Willingness or consent of the person concerned immaterial. (Para 25, 26, 27)
       (1954) 1 SCR 1005: AIR 1954 SC 282 – Relied upon
       AIR 1992 Bombay 13; (1992) 3 SCC 285; (2007) 6 SCC 317; (2008) 9 SCC 720; (2011) 5 SCC 360; (1970) 2 SCC 467 – Distinguished
       (1954) 1 SCR 1005; (1965) 2 SCR 477; (1971) 1 SCC 82; (2012) 1 SCC 226 – Referred
       (e) Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – Section 368(5) – Circular dated 12.12.2011 – Clauses (4) – Procedure for those who do not agree with the revised TRC – Directed to follow the procedure. (Para 29)
       (f) Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – Section 368(5) – Circular dated 12.12.2011 – Clauses (6) – Increasing TRC by 10% every year from 2009 – Irrespective of the nature of business carried on by the Licencee – Highly arbitrary – Without any guideline – Violative of natural justice – Respondent directed to give opportunity of hearing to parties concerned. (Para 30)
       Facts of the case:
       The appellants are traders, carrying on activities of warehouse keepers, godown keepers, bank mukadam, carriers of stores, material and goods required to be stored and kept safe from insects, ants, rodents, moisture, rain, heat, fire etc. For this purpose, the appellants from time to time have been obtaining trade licences issued under. According to the appellants, the respondents recover 'trade refuse charges' (‘TRC’), by making the payment thereof a condition for renewing the trade licences under the MMC Act on a yearly basis.
       Respondent Corporation fixed the pattern of Trade Refuse Charges (TRC) to be collected from the owners/occupiers of trade premises. The TRC were revised by almost 300% of the trade licence fees. It was further stated that the same was required to be collected once in a year along with the Licence fees at the time of renewal of licences.
       The appellants and several other parties made representations and preferred writ petitions
       On intervention of High Court TRC were modified.
       The High Court by the impugned common order dismissed the writ petitions of the appellants.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned judgment is justified.
       Result: Appeals disposed of.

JUDGMENT

M.Y. Eqbal, J.: Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 30.7.2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay in the writ petitions preferred by the appellants.

3. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions preferred by the appellants challenging the Circular dated 12th December, 2011 and the respective entries made in the schedule appended thereto issued by the Respondent-Municipal Corporation of Grater Mumbai as also the respective entries in the schedule appended thereto, thereby questioning the levy of ‘trade refuse charges’ and the rates thereof.

4. The appellants are traders, carrying on activities of warehouse keepers, godown keepers, bank mukadam, carriers of stores, material and goods required to be stored and kept safe from insects, ants, rodents, moisture, rain, heat, fire etc. For this purpose, the appellants from time to time have been obtaining trade licences issued under Section 394 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (in short, ‘MMC Act’). According to the appellants, the respondents recover 'trade refuse charges' (hereinafter referred to as ‘TRC’), by making the payment thereof a condition for renewing the trade licences under the MMC Act on a yearly basis.

5. Respondent Corporation, vide circular dated 5.6.1999 fixed the pattern of Trade Refuse Charges (TRC) to be collected from the owners/occupiers of trade premises. On receiving various representations from the traders, Municipal Commissioner took the decision of modifying the earlier charges levied on the trade refuse. Therefore, the TRC were revised by the Respondent Commissioner vide a circular dated 14.1.2008 w.e.f.1.1.2008 by almost 300% of the trade licence fees. It was further stated that the same was required to be collected once in a year along with the Licence fees at the time of renewal of licences issued under section 394 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The appellants and several other parties made representations and preferred writ petitions urging reconsideration of the rates, which were disposed of by the Bombay High Court by an order dated 12.4.2010 upon the statement being made on behalf of the respondents that they would reconsider the rates of TRC.

6. Respondent Corporation gave a hearing to the representations and instructed the department concerned to submit the detailed report. A Core Committee was constituted which submitted its report in 2010. On consideration of Core Committee report, TRC were modified by the impugned Circular dated 12.12.2011. The circular stipulated that the TRC would be collected with retrospective effect from 1.1.2008 onwards.

7. Although there was very significant reduction in rates of trade refuse charges to be collected, the appellants, being dissatisfied, again moved the Bombay High Court by way of writ petitions, contending that they merely receive goods from the customers for purposes of safe custody and upon receipt of the prescribed charges, return such goods to the customers in the same conditions. For this purpose, they provide adequate space, security and safeguards against fire, rain, water, etc. In the process, neither any solid waste, nor any trade refuse is generated. In the circumstances, it is their case that levy of TRC upon them and that too with retrospective effect i.e. from 2008 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The appellants further contended that they do not generate any trade refuse and, therefore, question of payment of TRC does not arise.

8. The High Court by the impugned common order dismissed the writ petitions of the appellants holding that there is nothing illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable or unconstitutional in the levy of TRC by the respondents. It was observed that the question as to whether the appellants generate 'trade refuse' or not is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 87

Cases Referred (8)