The main legal point established in the judgment is that while a fee can be prescribed for grant of permission for purchase and sale of property, the levy of fee on a percentage basis as prescribed by the Rules offends the concept of regulatory fee and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

DIPAK MISRA, J. :- Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, Secretary, Catholic Diocese of Indore, has prayed for declaring the Sections 21(2), 27, 28 and 29 of the M. P. Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as amended by the M. P. (Sanshodhan) Act (No. 29 of 1998), Rule 4 of M. P. Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1998 (for brevity 'the 1998 Rules') and Schedule to the said Rule as unconstitutional and to issue a further direction to the respondent No. 2, Registrar of Firms and Societies, to refund the amount that has been levied for grant of permission as contemplated under Section 21(3) read with Schedule to Rule 4.

2. The facts in a nut shell are that the petitioner is the Secretary of Catholic Diocess, a society registered under the Act and is represented by its Secretary. The object of the society is to support and maintain the Roman Catholic Bishop and Clergy of the Diocese of Indore and Roman Catholic religious, charitable and educational purposes throughout the diocese of Indore. The membership of the Society is restricted to the members of Catholic clergy and Catholic religious congregation. It is averred that main purpose of the society, as is evident from the bye-laws, is to perform and encourage the services of humanity as per Christian religion of the Roman Catholic faith. As pleaded, for carrying out the activities of society the Diocese desired to purchase the land bearing Khasra Nos. 265/1, 266/1 and 266/1 (KA) situated in village Chhota Bangadada, Tahsil Indore from certain persons. By the resolution of the Diocese, the petitioner was authorized to do the needful in the matter. A copy of the resolution has been brought on record as Annexure-5. The petitioner entered into an agreement for purchase of the said property with the land owners on 12-4-1999. Each agreement provided for sale consideration of Rs. 4,25,000/- per acre.

3. It is contended that as per the provisions of the Act every society is required to obtain prior permission before purchase of immovable property. As there is a postulate to deposit the fees it was so imposed by the respondent No. 2 which compelled the petitioner to deposit a fee of Rs. 76,501/- which was done under protest by challan as per Annexure-9. After the said deposit was made the respondent No. 2 granted permission under Section 21 on 1-6-1999, as per Annexure-11. In pursuance of such permission the sale deed has been executed in favour of the petitioner on 12-6-1999 and 14-6-1999.

4. It is contended that the provisions that deal with the levy of fees are unconstitutional as the State Legislature does not have the competence to levy such fees. It is put forth that the fees as prescribed is a tax and is a colourable exercise of power. It is further urged that no fee can be charged for permission of sale of property of the society inasmuch as necessary ingredients for authorizing a valid and legal levy of fee are absent. In the absence of quid pro quo between levy of fee and the service provided the imposition is impermissible. It is urged that no service is provided by the respondent No. 2 to any of the society to justify the levy of fee. Reference has been made to Section 28 to highlight that there is provision for submission of audit statement of income and expenditure of the society to the Registrar along with the balance sheet and the aforesaid section does not contemplate any further audit or inspection. Therefore, the schedule is not for the purpose of undertaking special audit under Section 28(2). It is asseverated that the imposition of such fee is unreasonable, harsh, arbitrary, excessive, unequitable and discriminatory and violates Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also set forth that such a levy is beyond the rule making power of the State and, therefore, the same deserves to be lanceted.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respon