Point of Law: 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 support) is mandatorily required under the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the transmission of the cable TV signals to the subscribers throughout the State, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Ext. P1 communication dated 20.06.2012 issued by the Secretary, Palakkad Municipality—first respondent, whereby it was informed that the Municipal Council, as per its decision dated 26.03.2012 in the budget proposal, has decided to impose an amount of Rs. 20/- towards fees for each cable connection provided to the customers by the operators with effect from 01.04.2012 and accordingly, the Secretary has directed the petitioner to pay the fees along with 12.36% of the amount towards service tax on or before 10th day of every month, failing which 1% penal interest was threatened to be recovered; and to declare that the respondent Municipality has no power or authority to levy or collect any fee from the petitioner in respect of the cable TV connection provided to the subscribers within the area of Palakkad Municipality.

2. The paramount contention advanced by the petitioner is that Ext. P1 notice and the decision of the Municipal Council—second respondent, to levy and collect fee of Rs. 20/-is ultra vires, without authority of law and is in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the same is unconstitutional and void; that the respondent Municipality is a statutory body created under the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994 ('Act, 1994" for short) and its power and functions are provided in the said Act and that the respondent Municipality cannot exercise any power not provided under the Act; that there is absolutely no provision in the Act to levy a compulsory impost by way of licence fee on the cable TV operators; that in the absence of any statutory provision the Municipal Council authorising the Secretary of the Municipality to levy licence fee as a compulsory impost is in violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India and therefore, unconstitutional, ultra vires and void; that the Municipality cannot usurp the power of the Central Government in respect of the regulation and control of the cable TV networks and business of cable operators, which are regulated by the Cable TV Act, enacted by the Parliament; and that, it is impermissible and ultra vires for a Municipality to levy, or even the State to make any law to levy any licence fee on cable operators in respect of the cable TV network falling within the legislative power of the Union Government under list I of the Constitution of India.

3. Though the writ petition is of the year 2012 and a stay was granted against Ext P1 as early as on 27.07.2012, respondents have cared to file a statement only on 2nd February, 2021, in which it is stated that the Budget of the Palakkad Municipality for the year 2012-2013 was presented before the second respondent Municipal Council on 26.03.2012 in order to raise the revenue of the Municipality considering the fact that they were passing through a precarious financial position; that during the course of budget, a proposal was submitted to levy fees from the cable TV operators at the rate of Rs.20/-per connection; that as per the decision of the Council, notices similar to one impugned in the writ petition was issued to 6 cable operators, including the petitioner and the petitioner alone had come forward to challenge the said notice pointing out that the same is without any authority of law: and that the petitioner is only challenging a notice and not the decision of the Council of the Municipality, and therefore, it seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Sri. S. Ramesh Babu assisted by Adv. Sri. Saji Varghese, and Sri. Binoy Vasudevan, learned Standing Counsel appeared for the Palakkad Municipality, and perused the pleadings and materials on record.

5. The paramount contention advanced by the learne