A license fee imposed under section 121 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, is a kind of tax which can be imposed in view of the provision of section 61 of the Act.

D.S.Tewatia, J.

1. The Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee Hoshiarpur, respondent No. 1, vide his letter which is un-dated to the President, Dry Cleaners Association, Hoshiarpur, informed him that with the sanction of the Regional Deputy Director, Local Government, Jullundur, the Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur, had levied licence fee according to the Schedule attached with the said letter and advised him to inform all the members of his association to obtain licenses from Municipal, Committee, Hoshiarpur. The president of the Dry Cleaners Association, Hoshiarpur, has through the present writ petition challenged the imposition of the license fee on three grounds: (i) that no such license fee could levied on Dry Cleaners under section 121 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as the Act); (ii) that the license fee assumed the form of tax as element of quid pro quo was missing; and (iii) that before passing the order No. 534 dated 16th/17th December, 1976 which find mention in the schedule P.2, affected persons had not been heard.

2. In reply, on behalf of the Municipal Committee respondent No. 1, Executive Officer of the said Municipal Committee took up the stand that the fee could be imposed under section 121 of the Act; that the element of quid pro quo was not missing as the Municipal Committee did render service to the members of the petitioner-association and that no notice was required to be served upon on any of the affected persons before passing order No. 634 dated 16th/17th December, 1975 by the Administrator of the Municipal Committee in question.

3. A preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition taken by respondent No. 1 in para 14 of the reply on the basis of the alternative statutory remedy having not been availed, was not pressed on behalf of the respondents and rightly, in my opinion, as once the petition is admitted and remains pending for almost nine years, it would not be fair to dismiss the petition on the question of law arising in the matter which can better be resolved by this Court rather than leave it is an uncertain stage which could lead to a further bout of litigation in this Court.

4. Almost an identical question came up for decision before the Court in M/s. Jagir Singh Mohinder Singh v. The State of Punjab through the Secretary, Local Self Government Punjab, Chandigarh, 1982 P.L.R. 313 : 1986 RRR 359 (P&H). That was a case in which the petitioners had come against the revised amount of license fee which they termed to be excessive and on that score called it a tax. Some of the petitioners whose cases were decided by a common judgment declared in that petition were carrying on trade of manufacturing of furniture and some of manufacturing implements. Following the decision of their Lordships in Corporation of Calcutta v. Liberty Cinema, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1107, it was held that the license fee was, in fact, a tax and the question of absence or presence of quid pro quo in the form of rendering adequate service to the petitioners was not relevant. It was observed in that case that under section 61 the Municipal Committee was competent to impose tax on persons carrying on trade and the form and method in which the tax to be levied was for the Municipal Committee to decide. Section 121 of the Municipal Committee was considered to be a provision which could be utilised to raise tax in the form of license fee. Section 121 of the Act is in the following terms :

121(1). No place within a municipality shall be used for any of the following purposes :-

** ** ** **

as any other manufactory, engine-house, (store house) or place of business from which offensive or unwholesome smells, (gases) noises or smoke arise, except under a license from the Committee which shall be renewable annually;

** ** ** **

(3) The Committee may charge any fees according to a scale to be approved by the (Deputy Commissioner) for such licenses, and may impose such conditions in respect