Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—Aggrieved by the notification dated 31.12.1994 whereby the inspection charges have suddenly been increased by the State Government, aggrieved by the demand notice directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.69,360/- as inspection charges for the years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, the petitioner has challenged the same before this Court.

2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that Shree Shyam Filaments is a division of Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd., a company registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act' for short). On 01.05.2001, Shri Shyam Filaments entered into an agreement with Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., ('the Nigam' for short), respondent No.1, for supply of electricity to it. In the agreement, Shri Shyam Filaments was described as 'the consumer'. According to the said agreement, the Nigam was responsible for supply of electricity at one point or more for industrial purpose upto maximum demands of 800 KVA. According to Clause No.9 of the agreement, the employees of the Nigam were entitled to enter into the premises of the consumer for the purpose of inspecting and testing its installations and for reading the electricity meter, and for inspecting and testing any of the apparatus, belonging to the Nigam, or for doing all things necessary or incidental to the proper giving or maintaining supply to the consumer.

3. Under Section 37 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 ('the Act' for short), the Central Electricity Board is empowered to regulate the levy of fees for testing or inspecting and generally for the service of the electrical Inspector appointed under the said Act. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 37 of the Act, the Central Electricity Board has promulgated the Indian Electricity Rules 1956 ('the Rules' for short). Rule 46 of the Rules provides for periodical inspection and testing of consumer's installations. Sub-clause (2)(a) of Rule 46 further provides that the fee for such an inspection and testing shall be determined by Central or the State Government, as the case may be, in case of each class of consumer. The fee shall be payable by the consumer in advance. Invoking its power under Rule 46 of the Rules, the State Government initially issued a notification on 25th August, 1959. Subsequently, the said notification was superseded by the notification dated 16.06.1977. Furthermore, the notification dated 16.06.1977 was superseded by the notification dated 31.12.1994 - the impugned notification before this Court. In furtherance of the said notification, a demand notice was issued by the Nigam to the petitioner for inspection charges to be paid for the years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. According to the demand notice, the petitioner was required to pay Rs.34,680/- for each year. Thus, the petitioner was required to pay a total of Rs.69360/-. Since the petitioner is aggrieved by both the notification dated 31.12.1994, and by the demand notice, it has knocked on the doors of this Court.

4. Mr. Ghanshyam Singh Sisodia, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that Article 265 of the Constitution of India clearly states that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority by law. Tax also includes the levying of fee. But such a power has to be utilized in a just, reasonable and fair manner. Rule 46 of the Rules empowers the State Government to levy fee for inspecting and testing all the electrical instruments. However, the said power cannot be utilized for levying a tax. For, neither the Act, nor the Rules permit the State Government to impose a tax. Rule 46 of the Rules permits merely the imposition of a fee. According to the learned counsel, a distinction has to be maintained between “a tax” and “a fee”.

5. Secondly, while notification of 1959 permitted a maximum charge of only Rs.450/-, through the notification dated 31.12.1995, the charges have been increased many a fold e.g. for inspection, examination or test done for each moto