IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ., GAUTAM A.ANKHAD
Rushabh Outdoors, Thane – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenge s.479(2) and fee hikes as arbitrary. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondents raise laches, res judicata; justify fee increases. (Para 3) |
| 3. delegation requires guidance; art.243x is enabling provision. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. no laches or res judicata in constitutional challenges. (Para 6) |
| 5. s.479(2) empowers commissioner to fix fees. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 6. delegation valid with policy guidance; no limits needed for fees. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. license fees regulatory; reasonable service correlation suffices. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 8. regulations and guidelines provide fee fixation procedure. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 9. s.479(2) constitutional; corporation sanction ensures check. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 10. writ petition dismissed. (Para 23) |
JUDGMENT :
Shree Chandrashekhar, C.J.
M/s. Rushabh Outdoors which is a partnership firm and represented through its partners, namely, Navnit Haria and Zaverben Liladhar Haria is joined by the proprietress of M/s. Synnovation, namely, Vandana Borse in laying a challenge to sub-section (2) of section 479 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, [MMC Act]. The petitioners are seeking a declaration that sub-section (2) of section 479 of the M

Kishan Prakash Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Sahodara Devi (Smt) & Ors. v. Govt. of India & Anr.
Orissa State (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Board v. Orient Paper Mills & Anr.
Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Mithilesh Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
Delhi Race Club Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Krishna Mohan (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.
Kandivali Co-Operative Industrial Estate & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.
Shanti G. Patel & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.
Sreenivasa General Traders & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Sub-section (2) of section 479 upheld; Commissioner’s power to fix advertisement license fees with Corporation sanction not excessive delegation, as guidelines exist in statute, policy, and democrati....
It is now well settled that the expression “fee” is also comprehended in the expression “tax” for the purpose of Article 265 and even for the collection of a “fee”, authority of law (i.e. legislative....
Municipal Boards must justify licence fees based on actual services rendered; excessive fees may be deemed an illegal tax.
License fees can be regulatory rather than tied directly to specific services, requiring reasonable correlation with total expenses incurred.
Amendments to municipal fee structures were quashed for failing to rectify judicially identified legal flaws, emphasizing the principle of quid pro quo in administrative fees.
(1) Levy of tax on advertisement(s) – Imposition of royalty cannot be equated with imposition of tax/levy – Royalty and tax cannot be equated – Royalty and tax are not one and same.(2) Estoppel – Con....
The Central Government is empowered under Section 211 of the Motor Vehicles Act to levy additional fees for delayed applications related to driving licenses and vehicle registrations, which are not p....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.