Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Satish Mandhyan for the petitioners, Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Jamwant Maurya and Sri M.C. Gupta for respondent No. 4 and learned standing counsel representing the State respondents.

2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

3. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners who are small businessmen/traders of Nagar Panchayat Raya, District Mathura have challenged the vires of bye-laws namely; “Nagar Panchayat Raya Ki Seemantargat Vanijya Niyantran Hetu License Niyamawali” dated 13.8.2001.

4. The Petitioners’ case in the writ petition is that the population of Nagar Panchayat Raya is not more than 30,000, the petitioners are carrying business in general merchandise, building materials, provisional stores, cloths etc. Citations dated 16.6.2010 have been issued by the Tahsildar against the petitioners for recovery of licence fee as arrears of land revenue. The Petitioners’ case in the writ petition is that the procedure prescribed under the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for framing of bye-laws have not been followed; the bye-laws have not been given effect to; the respondent No. 4 has not issued licence to any traders; the demand for licence fee is illegal; the rates fixed are totally arbitrary and have no relation to trade and calling of the persons. The petitioners have prayed for following reliefs in the writ petition :

“(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the Bye-laws known as “Nagar Panchayat Raya Seemantargat Vanijya Niyantran Hetu Licence Niyamawali” as published in the official gazette dated 13.8.2001 as ultravires to the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916;

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the citations dated 16.6.2010 issued by the respondent No. 5, filed as Annexure No. 2 collectively to this writ petition;

(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the citations (Annexure No. 2) or recovery of the amounts as detailed in the said citation;”

4. Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in support of the writ petition had made following submissions:

(i) The impugned bye-laws dated 13.8.2001 have not been framed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916.

(ii) The bye-laws mention Section 118 of the Act and the notice which was published before framing of the bye-laws mentioned Section 131 of the Act but procedure for imposition of tax has not been followed.

(iii) The bye-laws do not provide any procedure for obtaining the licence, conditions of licence and the municipal board is charging the fee from the traders without requiring them to obtain licence.

(iv) For imposition of fee, it is necessary that there is regulation of the trade by the Municipal Board and the principle of quid-pro-quo would be involved to support the levy by the Municipal Board. The Municipal Board has to specify that the Regulation was necessary and for that purpose, the Municipal Board was incurring certain expenses to match the Regulation, as fee has to be equivalent to the service rendered by the Municipal Board.

(v) Licence fee cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue and the citations issued by the Tahsildar are without jurisdiction.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court Bidhannagar (Salt Lake) Welfare Association v. Central Valuation Board and others, (2007) 6 SCC 668. Three judgments of this Court Ram Bilas Tibriwal v. Chairman, Municipal Board, Titri Bazar and others, 1998 (89) RD 513; Lachman Prasad Agrawal and another v. The District Magistrate, Kanpu