( 1 ) I regret that I have to differ from my brothers Jagdish Sahai and Bishambhar Dayal and to say that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

( 2 ) THE Municipal Board framed Rickshaw bye-laws in exercise of the power conferred upon it under Sections 298 (II)-List I-I-I (c) and (d) and 294. It is not in dispute that it could in exercise of the power frame the bye-laws imposing the obligation of taking out licences on the proprietors and drivers of rickshaws and fixing the fees payable for the licenses. What is contended is that clause (12) of the bye-laws fixing a fee of Rs. 30/-for a licence granted to a proprietor, and clause (14) fixing a fee of Rs. 5/- for a licence granted to a driver, of a rickshaw are invalid, because the total amount realised from the licence fees far exceeds the expenses incurred in the regulation of the plying on hire of rickshaws. It was contended in the plaint that the Board could charge a licence fee just to cover the probable, expenses of regulating the trade of plying rickshaws on hire and could not make the licence fee another source of income to augment its general fund, that it maintains no extra staff to regulate, the trade of plying