Back
2003 Supreme(Bom) 222
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Lodha R.M. Smt. Mhatre Nishita, JJ.
Pune Khadya Peya Vikreta Sangh .... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharashtra another.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 3677 of 1992, decided on 20-2-2003.
Advocates appeared :
S.M. Gorwadkar for K.Y. Mandlik, for petitioner.
N.P. Deshpande, A.G.P., for respondents.
Headnote:Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Section 33 - Increase in fees - Challenged - Allegation of exorbitant increase - Workload has increased due to increase in commercial activities all around - Held - It is true that increase is substantial but considering work load on police force, it cannot be said to be exorbitant - It is not too high to be interfered with - Fees was being increased almost about 40 years after its initiation - Increase cannot be tested with arithmetical precision. - What remains is to be seen is now is whether the increase/enhancement of fee for licence/registration by the impugned rules is grossly exorbitant and arbitrary. The licence fees for place of amusement or entertainment including eating house remained stagnant for almost 39 years. The licence fees prescribed in the year 1950 or so continued to be so without upward revision until the impugned increase/enhancement. The respondents have justified the increase by submitting that expenses on the staff required for the purpose of issuance of licences, collecting licence fees and regulating the entire administration; of issuance of licences have increased multifold. For supervision and inspection of hotels, restaurants, beer bars and for verification and ascertaining compliance of licence conditions or breach thereof, huge police staff/personnel are required. In the year 1950 there were hardly few places of amusement or entertainment and hardly few hotels, guest houses and permit rooms which have increased by leaps and bounds during all these years. Prior to the increase, the amount received by way of licence fees was hardly Rs. 3 lacs while the expenses required to be incurred by the respondents for the purposes of issuance of licences, collecting licence fees, regulating the administration of issuance of licences, supervision and inspection of places of amusement or entertainment including hotels, restaurants, beer bars come to about Rs. 62 lacs. It was because of this reason that it became imminently necessary to increase the licence fees for the places of public amusement or entertainment. Even after the increase in the licence fees, the State shall hardly receive Rs. 39 lacs which will be much less than expenses incurred. It is submitted by the respondents that on account of revision of pay-scales, H.R.A., D.A. and other benefits/facilities provided to the staff deployed for the purposes of regulating and controlling the places of amusement or entertainment, even the increase impugned is not sufficient. It is true that the increase in licence fees by the impugned rules is substantial, but it does not seem to be grossly unreasonable or hugely exorbitant warranting interference by this Court. It is not that for every
type of place of amusement or entertainment the increase is hundred to three hundred times as was sought to be projected and contended by the Counsel for the petitioner. It would be seen from the impugned rules that for some types of hotels, restaurants, canteens with beer bars the increase is only to Rs. 100/- to Rs. 300/-, or Rs. 500/-. Similarly, in respect of lodging houses, boarding and lodging houses or residential hotels with permit room or bar, having few rooms upto 10 rooms or 11 to 25 rooms the increase is Rs. 150/- to Rs. 300/- respectively. For lodging houses, boarding and lodging houses or residential hotels without permit rooms or bar, for smaller places having few rooms the increase is to Rs. 100/- upto Rs. 350/-. With regard to the hotels, restaurants, canteens with permit rooms in respect of areas having lesser population, increase is upto Rs. 300/- and for having population above 10 lacs, but below 20 lacs, the increase is to Rs. 500/- and in respect of the areas having population above 20 lacs the increase is to Rs. 750/-. The licence fees having remained stagnant for almost four decades right from 1950, at first blush the increase seems to be high, taking into consideration the factors set out by the respondents in the counter, it cannot be termed to be hugely exorbitant or grossly unreasonable. Once the element of quid pro quo is not applicable for levy of fees for licences which are regulatory in character, the increase cannot be tested with the arithmetical precision. Be it noted that prior to the amendment in the said rules, the draft rules were published and the objections raised by the petitioner were considered. All in all, no case for invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction is made out
Keeping Places of Public Entertainment in Pune Police Commissionerate Rules, 1990 - Increase in fees - Ground taken that for the last more than 40 years it was not increased - Quantity of commercial transaction has gone up many times than that of 40 years back - Increase in licence fee is substantial yet not exorbitant - Once the element of quid pro quo is not applicable for levy of fees for licences which are regulatory in nature, increase cannot be tested in arithmetical ratio. - What remains to be seen now is whether the increase/enhancement of fee for licence/registration by the impugned rules is grossly exorbitant and arbitrary. The licence fees for place of amusement or entertainment including eating house remained stagnant for almost 39 years. The licence fees prescribed in the year, 1950 or so continued to be so without upward revision until the impugned increase/enhancement. The respondents have justified the increase by submitting that expenses on the staff required for the purpose of issuance of licences, collecting licence fees and regulating the entire administration; of issuance of licences have increased multifold. For supervision and inspection of hotels, restaurants, beer bars and for verification and ascertaining compliance of licence conditions or breach thereof, huge police staff/personnel are required. In the year 1950 there were hardly few places of amusement or entertainment and hardly few hotels, guest houses and permit rooms which have increased by leaps and bounds during all these years. Prior to the increase, the amount received by way of licence fees was hardly Rs. 3 lacs while the expenses required to be incurred by the respondents for the purposes of issuance of licences, collecting licence fees, regulating the administration of issuance of licences, supervision and inspection of places of amusement or entertainment including hotels, restaurants, beer bars come to about Rs. 62 lacs. It was because of this reason that it became imminently necessary to increase the licence fees for the places of public amusement or entertainment. Even after the increase in the licence fees, the State shall hardly receive Rs. 39 lacs which will be much less than expenses incurred. It is submitted by the respondents that on account of revision of pay-scales, H.R.A., D.A. and other benefits/facilities provided to the staff deployed for the purposes of regulating and controlling the places of amusement or entertainment, even the increase impugned is not sufficient. It is true that the increase in licence fees by the impugned rules is substantial, but it does not seem to be grossly unreasonable or hugely exorbitant warranting interference by the Court. It is not that for every type of place of amusement or entertainment the increase is hundred to three hundred times as was sought to be projected and contended by the counsel for the petitioner
Keeping Places of Public Entertainment in Pune Police Commissionerate Rules, 1990 - Increase in fees - Ground taken that for the last more than 40 years it was not increased - Quantity of commercial transaction has gone up many times than that of 40 years back - Increase in licence fee is substantial yet not exorbitant - Once the element of quid pro quo is not applicable for levy of fees for licences which are regulatory in nature, increase cannot be tested in arithmetical ratio. - What remains to be seen now is whether the increase/enhancement of fee for licence/registration by the impugned rules is grossly exorbitant and arbitrary. The licence fees for place of amusement or entertainment including eating house remained stagnant for almost 39 years. The licence fees prescribed in the year, 1950 or so continued to be so without upward revision until the impugned increase/enhancement. The respondents have justified the increase by submitting that expenses on the staff required for the purpose of issuance of licences, collecting licence fees and regulating the entire administration; of issuance of licences have increased multifold. For supervision and inspection of hotels, restaurants, beer bars and for verification and ascertaining compliance of licence conditions or breach thereof, huge police staff/personnel are required. In the year 1950 there were hardly few places of amusement or entertainment and hardly few hotels, guest houses and permit rooms which have increased by leaps and bounds during all these years. Prior to the increase, the amount received by way of licence fees was hardly Rs. 3 lacs while the expenses required to be incurred by the respondents for the purposes of issuance of licences, collecting licence fees, regulating the administration of issuance of licences, supervision and inspection of places of amusement or entertainment including hotels, restaurants, beer bars come to about Rs. 62 lacs. It was because of this reason that it became imminently necessary to increase the licence fees for the places of public amusement or entertainment. Even after the increase in the licence fees, the State shall hardly receive Rs. 39 lacs which will be much less than expenses incurred. It is submitted by the respondents that on account of revision of pay-scales, H.R.A., D.A. and other benefits/facilities provided to the staff deployed for the purposes of regulating and controlling the places of amusement or entertainment, even the increase impugned is not sufficient. It is true that the increase in licence fees by the impugned rules is substantial, but it does not seem to be grossly unreasonable or hugely exorbitant warranting interference by the Court. It is not that for every type of place of amusement or entertainment the increase is hundred to three hundred times as was sought to be projected and contended by the counsel for the petitioner
2. The enhancement in the fees for licence/registration under the impugned Rules is thus:
"I. Pune City Rates Rs.
(1) 5 Star Hotel 3,000
(2) 4 Star Hotel 2,500
(3) 3 Star Hotel 2,000
II. Hotels/Restaurants/Canteens with bar in respect of:---
(a) areas with population upto 50000 100
(b) areas with population above 50000
but below 3 lakhs 300
(c) areas with population above 3
lakhs but below 10 lakhs 500
(d) areas with population above 10
lakhs but below 20 lakhs 750
(e) areas with population above 20 lakhs. 900
III. Lodging house, boarding and lodging house or residential hotel with permit room:
(a) having upto 10 rooms 150
(b) having 11 to 25 rooms 300
(c) having 26 to 100 rooms 500
(d) having more than 100 rooms 750
IV. Lodging house, boarding and lodging house or residential ho tel without permit room or bar:---
(a) having upto 10 rooms 100
(b) having 10 to 25 rooms 150
(c) having 26 to 100 rooms 350
(d) having more than 100 rooms 500
V. Hotels, Restaurants, Canteens with permit room in respect of areas:---
(a) having population; upto 50000 150
(b) having population above 50000
but below 3 lakhs 200
(c) having population above 3 lakhs
but below 10 lakhs 300
(d) having population above 10 lakhs
but below 20 lakhs 500
(e) having population above 20 lakhs 750
VI. Renewals/transfer or assignment
of licence The same fee which is charge- able for grant of licence for any purpose.
VII. Delay in renewal of licence A fee of Rs. 50 per month shall be charged from the date of expiry of licence if there is delay of two months in mak- ing application for renewal. If there is delay be- yond one year in- making applica tion the licence shall be treated as cancelled.
VIII. Change of location 250
IX. Inclusion of name of partner, agent,
conductor or manager
in the licence. 200
X. Addition or alteration or both
other than that mentioned at IX above. 200
XI. Temporary licence for keeping a place
of public entertainment on special
occasions irrespective of hours of
business for a period not exceeding
thirty days. 25
XII. Special licence for keeping place
of public entertainment open on
special occasion beyond the time
limit specified in each licence. 25 per each hour
XIII. Duplicate copy of licence. 25 per copy."
3. Though in the writ petition diverse contentions in challenging the enhancement of licence/registration fee of a place of public entertainment have been raised, during the course of arguments, Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners pressed only one contention. His contention is that the increase of licence/registration fee is grossly unreasonable, arbitrary and unjustified. He submitted that the fee which was hitherto charged at Rs. 10/- for every licence has been increased multifold and particularly to some of the places hundred times to three hundred times which is ridiculous. To buttress his argument, the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in (A.P. Paper Mills Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh another)1, 2000(8) S.C.C. 167.
4. When no counter was filed by the respondents despite
