HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
D. N. Sinha
SARAT CHANDRA GHATAK - Appellant
Versus
CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA - Respondent
Matter 81 Of 1956
Decided On : NOVEMBER 21, 1957
CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL ACT, 1951 - SECTION 229 - ADVERTISEMENT LICENSE FEE - VALIDITY - DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER - DISCRIMINATION - UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who carry on the business of exhibiting cinema films in cinema houses situated within the boundaries of the Corporation of Calcutta, challenged the validity of Section 229 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, and the rules framed thereunder, which imposed a license fee on advertisements displayed on cinema screens.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the delegation of power to the Corporation and the Government to prescribe the manner, rate, and exemptions for the license fee was excessive and unconstitutional, as it failed to lay down any policy or guidelines for the exercise of such power. The Court also found that the power granted to the Corporation to exempt any person or body of persons from the payment of the license fee was discriminatory and arbitrary, as it lacked any objective criteria or policy.
Issues: 1. Whether the delegation of power to the Corporation and the Government to prescribe the manner, rate, and exemptions for the license fee was excessive and unconstitutional. 2. Whether the power granted to the Corporation to exempt any person or body of persons from the payment of the license fee was discriminatory and arbitrary.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The delegation of legislative power must be within permissible limits and cannot be an abdication of legislative functions. The Legislature cannot delegate the power to determine the policy and formulation of legislative rules to another body. 2. The power to levy a tax or impose a license fee involves fundamental matters of policy, such as the manner of imposition, the rate, and the determination of the class of taxpayers. These matters cannot be left unspecified or delegated without laying down the policy. 3. The power to grant exemptions from a tax or license fee must be guided by objective criteria and policy, and cannot be left to the arbitrary discretion of the executive authority.
Final Decision: The Court declared Section 229 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, and the rules framed thereunder to be unconstitutional and void. It issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from demanding or realizing any license fees from the petitioners under the said provisions.
( 1 ) THIS application and two other applications were heard one after another, and the points of law involved are the same, and there was a common set of arguments. The point involved is the interpretation of Section 229 of thp Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, (hereinafter called the "act" ). That Section runs as follows:"every person who erects, exhibits, fixes or retains upon or over any land, building, wall, hoarding or structure any advertisement, or who displays any advertisement to public view in any manner whatsoever, visible from a public street or other public place, shall pay for every advertisement which is so erected, exhibited, fixed, retained or displayed to public view, a license fee calculated at such rate and in such manner and subject to such exemptions as the Corporation may prescribe by rules, with the approval of the State Government. "
( 2 ) THE petitioners in all these applications carry on the business of exhibiting cinema films in Cinema Houses situated within the boundaries of the Corporation of Calcutta. Advertisements are displayed on cinema screens by means of slides, as also by moving pictures. The Corporation framed rules by a resolution dated August 27, 1954 which was approved by Government by notification No. 5002/m. 3r-1/55, dated 16-6-1955, as published in the Calcutta Gazette dated June 30, 1955 for the levy of license fees on advertisements under Section 229 of the Act. Section 230 of the Act lays down that after rules have been prescribed for the levy of license fee under Section 229, no advertisement for which a license fee is leviable shall be erected, exhibited, fixed or retained upon or over any land, building, wall, boarding or structure, or shall be displayed to public view in any manner whatsoever, in any place, without a license from the Commissioner.
( 3 ) RULE 1 of the said rules lays down that for every license granted under Section 230 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 a fee shall be charged at the rates specified in the schedule to the Rules, or at such other rates as may, from time to time, be prescribed by the Corporation in lieu thereof, by rules, with the approval of the State Government.
( 4 ) RULE 2 lays down that the license fee may be imposed on an annual basis or a monthly basis.
( 5 ) RULE 4 lays down that the Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded by him and which he considers to be sufficient, exempt from the payment of fees, advertisements, which relate to public charitable institutions, public educational institutions, public hospitals, or free dispensaries, places of public worship or such as, give the public, information or directions. The schedule of fees contains many items, e. g. advertisement on hoardings, walls or posrs, advertisements on cloth hung across streets or footpaths, advertisements fixed to or against the wall or cuter face of a building, advertisements suspended over or across the street etc. What we are concerned with in these cases is, however, item No. 10 which runs as follows: "advertisements exhibited on screen by means of lantern slides or similar devices (including the slide advertisements exhibited on the screen in Cinema houses):
Per month. Per year.
(a) For a space upto 5 sq. ft. 64 0 0 (b) For aspace over 5 sq. ft. and 25 sq. ft. 80 0 0 (c) For every additional 25 sq. ft. or less. 80 0 0
( 6 ) ALTHOUGH the rates have been specified, the rule is entirely vague as to how the amount due is to be actually calculated. It is well known that in Calcutta cinema houses there are several shows each day. Advertisements therefore, tend to be repeated, and the same advertisement may continue to be exhibited for weeks or months or even years. It is not stated in the rule as to whether a particular advertisement is to be made liable for payment of license fee for each exhibition, or for a series of exhibitions. The only indication is that the fee may be imposed on an annual basis or on a monthly basis. The lea
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.