The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Government was competent to authorize the levy of a fee in respect of cow-houses under the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, and the levy of fee was valid under the Act.

1. These two writ petitions Nos. 3619 of 1985 and 979 of 1986 challenge the Haryana Municipal (Cow-Houses) Bye-Laws 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Bye-laws) as also the imposition of the fee. The questions of fact and law being identical, these petitions shall be disposed of by a common order.

2. It would suffice to notice the facts in CWP No.3619 of 1985. The 169 petitioners are residents of Sonepat. Each one of them owns 3 to 35 cows or buffaloes and are engaged in the business of dairy. They claim to have been engaged in this business for the last many years. It is the case of the petitioners that the Municipal Committee, Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) does not provide any facility by way of grazing grounds, a pond, or any other facility which may be of any use to the petitioners. On the contrary, the petitioners claim that their business is a source of revenue of the Committee in as much as the carcasses are sold by the Committee, as a result of which it earns about Rs. 80,000 / - to Rs. 1,00,000 / - per year.

3. The State of Haryana u/S.200 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) framed the bye-laws providing interalia that no person living within the municipal limit shall use any premises as a cow-house without obtaining a licence. It was also prescribed that for each cow-house a separate licence will be necessary. A licence fee of Rs. 10.00- per animal above one year of age and Rs. 5.00 per animal up to one year of age was prescribed. The petitioners having failed to obtain licence and to pay the necessary fee were served with a notice alleging infringement of the bye-laws. They were called upon to explain their conduct. They were also informed that on that failure to comply with the notice legal proceedings were likely to be initiated against them. Aggrieved by the issue of the notices, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the bye-laws through the present writ petition.

4. Separate written statements have been filed by the two respondents. The averments in the petition have been controverted. It has been inter alia averred on behalf of the State that the Municipal Committee has provided facilities by maintaining ponds, giving water connections, light, sweepers, pacca streets and drainage facilities. The suggestion that the Committee was earning Rs. 80,000.00 to Rs. 1,00,000.00 from the sale of carcasses has been denied. It has been further averred that some of the petitioners had applied for the licence and paid the requisite licence fee. The action for the recovery of the licence fee is being taken only against only such persons as have not complied with the provisions of the bye-laws. It has been further averred that the bye-laws are valid and the challenge thereto is wholly untenable. Similar averments have been made in the written statement filed on behalf of the committee.

5. Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended for the levying of licence fee is totally beyond the provisions of the Act because the Act does not authorise the levy of licence fee for premises used as cow-houses. He has further contended that even if it is assumed that fee could be levied on cow-houses, the levy in the present case was ultra vires the Act in as much as it had been levied on the number of cattle heads and not the premises. He has further contended that the levy of fee is in any case bad as no service for the class of cattle holders was being rendered by the Committee. There was no element of quid pro quo between the licencee and the Committee. He has further contended that if the provisions of the bye-laws are construed to mean that the levy is a tax, it is vitiated because the provisions of S.70 of the Act do not contemplate the levy of tax on animal houses and also because the procedure laid down u/Ss.74 and 75 of the Act had not been followed. On the other hand, Mr. D.D. Vasudeva appearing for the respondent-State has contended