KANDIVALI CO-OP. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE vs. MUNICIPAL CORP. OF GREATER MUMBAI .

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1431 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 30485 of 2013 ) Kandivali Cooperative Industrial Estate and another …Appellant (s) versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others …Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.1433 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C)No. 33545 of 2013 ) Bulwark Warehousing Company and others …Appellant (s) versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others …Respondent(s) JUDGMENT CIVIL APPEAL NO.1436 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C)No. 35558 of 2013 ) Wadi Bunder Cotton Press Co. …Appellant (s) versus Brihan Mumbai Mahanagar Palika and others …Respondent(s) 1 Page 1 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1434 OF 2015 ) (Arising out of SLP(C)No. 35589 of 2013

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1435 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 35593 of 2013) Narendra & Co. and another …Appellant (s) versus Brihan Mumbai Mahanagar Palika and others …Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T M.Y. Eqbal, J. : JUDGMENT Leave granted. 2. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 30.7.2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay in the writ petitions preferred by the appellants. 2 Page 2 3. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions preferred by the appellants

issued by the Respondent-Municipal Corporation of Grater Mumbai as also the respective entries in the schedule appended thereto, thereby questioning the levy of ‘trade refuse charges’ and the rates thereof. 4. The appellants are traders, carrying on activities of warehouse keepers, godown keepers, bank mukadam, JUDGMENT carriers of stores, material and goods required to be stored and kept safe from insects, ants, rodents, moisture, rain, heat, fire etc. For this purpose, the appellants from time to time have been obtaining trade licences issued under Section 394 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 3 Page 3 (in short, ‘MMC Act’). According to the appellants, the respondents recover 'trade refuse charges' (hereinafter referred to as ‘TRC’), by making the payment thereof a

5. Respondent Corporation, vide circular dated 5.6.1999 fixed the pattern of Trade Refuse Charges (TRC) to be collected from the owners/occupiers of trade premises. On receiving various representations from the traders, Municipal Commissioner took the decision of modifying the earlier charges levied on the trade refuse. Therefore, the TRC were revised by the Respondent Commissioner vide a circular JUDGMENT dated 14.1.2008 w.e.f.1.1.2008 by almost 300% of the trade licence fees. It was further stated that the same was required to be collected once in a year along with the Licence fees at the time of renewal of licences issued under section 394 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The appellants and several other parties made 4 Page 4 representations and preferred writ petitions urging reconsideration of the rates, which were disposed of by the Bombay High Court by an order dated 12.4.2010 upon the

6. Respondent Corporation gave a hearing to the representations and instructed the department concerned to submit the detailed report. A Core Committee was constituted which submitted its report in 2010. On consideration of Core Committee report, TRC were modified by the impugned Circular dated 12.12.2011. The circular JUDGMENT stipulated that the TRC would be collected with retrospective effect from 1.1.2008 onwards. 7. Although there was very significant reduction in rates of trade refuse charges to be collected, the appellants, being 5 Page 5 dissatisfied, again moved the Bombay High Court by way of writ petitions, contending that they merely receive goods from the customers for purposes of safe custody and upon

provide adequate space, security and safeguards against fire, rain, water, etc. In the process, neither any solid waste, nor any trade refuse is generated. In the circumstances, it is their case that levy of TRC upon them and that too with retrospective effect i.e. from 2008 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The appellants further contended that they do not generate any trade refuse and, therefore, question of payment of TRC does not arise. JUDGMENT 8. The High Court by the impugned common order dismissed the writ petitions of the appellants holding that there is nothing illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable or 6 Page 6 unconstitutional in the levy of TRC by the respondents. It was observed that the question as to whether the appellants generate 'trade refuse' or not is a disputed question of fact,

any merit in the contention that the levy of TRC is invalid, because according to the Appellants there is no element of 'quid pro quo'. The Appellants are certainly benefited, in as much as they have been called upon to pay TRC at reduced rates with effect from the year 2008. No retrospectivity is involved in the implementation of the Circular dated 12th December, 2011. If the contention is upheld, it is the appellants who would suffer a higher TRC. The High Court has further held that provisions of Sections 368(5) and JUDGMENT 394(5) read with Section 479 of the MMC Act entitle the respondents to impose restrictions and conditions at the time of grant of licence. The same principle will be applicable even at the stage of renewal of licences. At this juncture, we 7 Page 7 consider it appropriate to reproduce the reasoning of the High Court in this regard:

JUDGMENT 9. Being aggrieved, the appellants call in question the correctness of the common judgment and order passed by the High Court in a batch of Writ Petitions dated 30.7.2013. 8 Page 8 10. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing for

vires and unconstitutional. Learned counsel submits that the respondents cannot demand, levy or recover any tax, cess or compulsory exaction without authority of law as mandate under Section 265 of the Constitution. According to the learned counsel, Section 368(5) empowers the Commissioner to fix the charges only when the owner or occupier of trade premises seeks permission to deposit trade refuse temporarily upon any place appointed by the Commissioner in this behalf and upon such permission JUDGMENT granted by the Commissioner. It was urged that none of the members of appellant had ever sought such permission from the Commissioner and, therefore, the question of levy of trade refuse charges under Section 368(5) of the Act does not arise. According to the learned counsel any compulsory 9 Page 9 exaction whether it be a fee or tax or any other levy must be backed by law. The Circular dated 12.12.2011 imposing trade refuse charges is irrational and arbitrary.

levy of TRC is contrary to the judgment of Bombay High Court in Doran Bomanji Ghadiali vs. Jamshed Kanga and others , AIR 1992 Bombay page 13 whereby the High Court has held that the only charge that can be levied on traders is to the limited extent provided under Section 368(5) of the Act. The Court further held that the fee imposable by Section 479 of the said Act must relate to licence or written permission for any purpose required under the Act and, therefore, the charge could only be for JUDGMENT permission to deposit the trade refuse temporarily at a particular place and would not apply to traders not seeking such permission to dump their refuse at any place. Learned counsel drew our attention to various sections of the Act and submitted that the manner in which the imposition or levy of 10 Page 10 charges contemplated under Section 368(5) of the Act, is ultra vires. Learned counsel relied upon the decision in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs.

Modern Breweries vs. State of J& K, (2007) 6 SCC 317 and Leelabai Gajanan Pansare vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd ., (2008) 9 SCC 720. 12. Mr. Chander Uday Singh, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of appellants in SLP (C) Nos. 35558, 35589 and 35593 of 2013, after referring relevant provisions of Municipal Corporation Act, made the following submissions:- JUDGMENT (i). The appellants are engaged in the warehousing business and they do not generate any trade refuse, thus entitling the Respondents to levy the TRC. Neither they are conducting any manufacturing activity due to which solid waste can be generated and, hence, the 11 Page 11 term TRC has been misinterpreted and equated to garbage. It was asserted that the Appellants merely receive goods from the customers for the purpose of

same condition. Therefore, the Respondents are wrong in treating every kind of refuse as 'trade refuse’ and on the said incorrect premise imposing TRC upon the appellants. 'Trade refuse' should mean and imply some solid waste generated by an industry involved in manufacturing process and in this regard reliance is placed upon sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Section 367 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of Section 368 of the MMC Act and as the terms "refuse" and "trade refuse" have been JUDGMENT dealt with separately this is indicative that every kind of refuse cannot be qualified as "trade refuse". (ii). It was pointed out that Respondents' own inspection reports of warehouses show that those warehousers only generated dust, tree leaves, etc. and 12 Page 12 in a quantity of only one and a half to two baskets. This cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be treated as trade refuse since the dust and tree leaves are blown

warehousers/appellants. Further, under Section 370 of the MMC Act it will be incumbent on the occupier of any premises situate in any portion of the city for which the Commissioner has not given a public notice under Section 142 (a) and in which there is no water closet or privy connected to municipal drains, to cause all excrementitious and polluted to be collected and to be conveyed to the nearest receptacle /depot provided for this purpose under Section 367 (b) and not (a). JUDGMENT Pertinently, 367 (a) deals with dust, ashes, refuse and rubbish and 367 (b) deals with trade refuse. Thus "trade refuse" is obnoxious refuse and cannot and ought not be equated with refuse generated in any trade /business establishment. It is submitted that this vital 13 Page 13 difference has been ignored and TRC is being unlawfully sought to be levied upon the appellants who generate no "trade refuse at all".

business, do not generate any trade refuse and in the event TRC constitutes a 'tax' there is no taxable event for imposition of tax in the form of TRC. Alternatively, if TRC is to be regarded a 'fee', then, on account of the circumstance that the appellants generate no trade refuse at all, there is no element of 'quid pro quo' and hence levy of fee in the form of TRC is illegal and invalid. JUDGMENT (iv). It was submitted that the linking of payment of TRC with renewal of trade licences under section 394 of the MMC Act, is illegal, invalid and, therefore, renewal of trade licences under section 394 of the MMC Act ought to be granted, irrespective of whether the appellants 14 Page 14 pay TRC or not. The TRC being levied in addition to the normal licence fees for issue of trade licences under Section 394 of the MMC Act, there is double charging,

not generate any 'trade refuse'. It was, therefore sought to be submitted, that the levy and collection of TRC cannot be linked to the renewal of an annual trade licence granted to the Appellants for conducting warehousing activity when there is no statutory provision enabling such linkage; and in the facts and circumstances and absence of any specific authority to levy a retrospective charge or fee, Respondent No.1 could not levy TRC with effect from 1.1.2008 when a JUDGMENT solemn assurance was made by Respondent No.1 to the Bombay High Court that there would be no linkage between TRC and licence fees collected at the stage of renewal. Under Section 471 of the MMC Act, Respondent No.1 is entitled to impose penalty for contravention of 15 Page 15 Section 368 (1) to (4) and under Section 472 of the Act, the Respondent No.1 is entitled to impose penalty for continuing offence in contravention of any provision of

without any basis or justification whatsoever sought to be linked with renewal of the Trade Licence, which is impermissible and bad in law. Furthermore, only valid trade licence holders are being charged TRC. It becomes pertinent to note that after 1976, Respondent No.1 has stopped issuing warehousing licences in the Greater Mumbai Area. Therefore, the burden on TRC is only being applied to valid licence holders and not to others who are carrying on the trade without any licence. JUDGMENT (v). It was again pointed out that the Respondents have completely ignored their own Circular No. ChE/280/SWM dated 06.04.2010 which categorically states that for the year 2010, TRC will be levied on the basis of licence fees 16 Page 16 of the licence issued by the Shops & Establishment Department of the MMC and that the Respondents will delink TRC from licence fees in future and new TRC levy

premises and is in fact more than the licence fees which is wholly illogical, irrational, arbitrary and without any authority of law. The policy adopted by the Respondents and the manner of collection of TRC (whether charged based on number of employees or square meter area) is absurd, unreasonable and disproportionately oppressive, without Application of mind and incompetent and without the authority of law. JUDGMENT (vi). Lastly, it was contended that any compulsory execration of money by the Government for a tax or a cess has to be strictly in accordance with law and there should be a specific provision for the same and there is no room for intendment and nothing is to be read or 17 Page 17 nothing is to be implied and one should look fairly to the language used. Our attention was drawn to the decision of this Court in Consumer Online Foundation vs.

by Respondent No.1 is in the nature of a tax and not a fee and hence such imposition without backing of statutes is unreasonable and unfair. Learned counsel also drew our attention to the decisions of this Court in the cases of Gupta Modern Breweries vs. State of J&K & Ors. - (2007) 6 SCC 317 and B.C. Banerjee & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (1970) 2 SCC 467. JUDGMENT 13. Mr. L. Nageswar Rao, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents, firstly contended that the constitutional validity of Section 368(5) of the Act was never challenged by any of the appellants as being ultra vires to the Constitution. The appellants have only prayed in the writ petitions for issuance of appropriate writ directing 18 Page 18 the respondents to cancel and/or withdraw the Circulars dated 14.1.2008 and 11.10.2011 and also to withdraw the th notice dated 9 June, 2014. Learned counsel submitted that

law. The competence of the authority to demand and levy TRC has not been challenged at any point of time. Distinguishing the imposition of fee/TRC and tax, learned counsel put heavy reliance on the ratio decided by this Court in the case of The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowment, Madras vs. Sri Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt, (1954) 1 SCR 1005. Mr. Rao referred to the Core Committee Report and submitted that the validity of guidelines provided therein cannot be tested JUDGMENT on any ground. Learned counsel put reliance on a decision in the case of Corporation of Calcutta & Anr. vs. Liberty Cinema, Assam , (1965) 2 SCR 477. Learned counsel also made submission on the object and purpose of collection and submitted that absolute equality is impossible for the 19 Page 19 purpose of levy of fee or charges. Learned counsel referred the decision of this Court in the case of Gulabchand Bapalal Modi vs. Municipal Corpn. of Ahmedabad City ,

14. Before appreciating the rival contentions made by the parties, we would like to refer the relevant provisions of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1988. Section 3 (yy) defines the word ‘trade refuse’ as under:- “3(yy) “Trade refuse” means and includes the refuse of any trade, manufacture or business.” 15. Section 367 empowers the Commissioner to make provision for providing receptacles, depots and places for JUDGMENT temporary deposit or final disposal of waste articles including trade refuse. Section 367 is quoted hereinbelow:- “367. Provision and appointment of receptacles, depots and places for refuse, etc., The Commissioner shall provide or appoint in proper and convenient 20 Page 20 situations public receptacles, depots and places for the temporary deposit or disposal of— (a) dust, ashes, refuse and rubbish; (b) trade refuse;”

the duty of owners and occupiers for the purpose of collecting and depositing dust etc. Sections 368, 394 and 479, which are under consideration in these appeals, read as under:- “ 368. Duty of owners and occupiers to collect and deposit dust, etc. , (1) It shall be incumbent on the owners and occupiers of all premises to cause all dust, ashes, refuse, rubbish and trade refuse to be collected from their respective premises and to be deposited at such times as the Commissioner, by public notice, from time to time prescribes in the public receptacle, depot or place provided or appointed under the last preceding section or the temporary deposit or final disposal thereof JUDGMENT (2) …… (3)……… (4)-……… (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, if the owner or occupier 'of any trade premises desires permission to deposit trade refuse, collected daily or periodically from the premises, temporarily upon any place appointed by the 21 Page 21 Commissioner in this behalf, the Commissioner may, on the application, and on payment of such charges as the Commissioner may from time to time, fix, allow the applicant to deposit the trade refuse accordingly.”

(1) Except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence granted by the Commissioner, no person shall— (a) keep, or suffer or allow to be kept, in or upon any premises, (I) any article specified in Part I of Schedule M; or, (II) any article specified in Part II of Schedule M, in excess of the quantity therein specified as the maximum quantity (or where such article is kept along with any other article or articles specified in that Schedule, such other maximum quantity as may be notified by the Commissioner) of such article which may at any one time be kept in or upon the same premises without a licence; (b) keep, or suffer or allow to be kept, in or upon any premises, for sale or for other than domestic use, any article specified in Part III of Schedule M; JUDGMENT (c) …………….. (d)…………….. (e) carry on or allow or suffer to be carried on, in or upon any premises.— (I) any of the trades specified in Part IV of Schedule M, or any process or operation connected with any such trade; 22 Page 22 (II) any trade, process or operation, which in the opinion of, the Commissioner, is dangerous to life, health or property, or likely to create a nuisance either from its nature or by reason of the manner in which, or the conditions under which, the, same is, or is proposed to be carried on;

(2)………………… (3)……………….. (4)………………. (5) It shall be in the discretion of the Commissioner.— (a) to grant any licence referred to in sub- section (1), subject to such restrictions or conditions (if any,) as he shall think fit to specify, or (b) for the purposes of ensuring public safety, to withhold any such licence: Provided that, the Commissioner when withholding any such licence shall record his reasons in writing for such withholding and furnish the person concerned a copy of his order containing the reasons for such withholding: Provided further that, any person aggrieved by an order of the Commissioner under this sub- section may, within sixty days of the date of such order, appeal to the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court, whose decision shall be final.” JUDGMENT “ 479. Licences and written permission to specify condition etc, on which they are granted:- (1) Whether it is provided in this Act that a licence or a written permission Licences and may be given for any purpose, such licence or 23 Page 23 written permission shall specify the wntten. period for which, and the restrictions and conditions subject to which, the same is granted, and shall be given under the signature of the Commissioner or of a munici pal officer empowered under section 68 to grant the same. (2)……………… (3)……………….. (4)……………….” 17. From a conjoint reading of the provisions quoted hereinbefore, it is manifestly clear that the Commissioner may from time to time inter alia specify conditions and restrictions while granting trade licence. The Commissioner may notify the charges including trade refuse charges i.e. to be collected from the trade licencees. JUDGMENT 18. In exercise of power conferred upon the Commissioner under the MMC Act, a Circular was issued on 14.1.2008 raising the TRC by almost 300 percent of the trade licence fees with the stipulation that the TRC would be collected at the time of renewal of the licence under Section 394 of the Act which were due to expire in December, 2009. As noticed 24 Page 24 above the said Circular dated 14.1.2008 was challenged before the Bombay High Court by way of writ petitions. When the writ petitions were taken up for hearing, learned

reconsideration by the Authority. On the basis of submissions made by the counsel for the Corporation, the writ petitions were disposed of as the grievances of the traders were satisfied. 19. In December, 2011, the respondents after re- consideration of the tariff fixed in the earlier circular came with another Circular dated 11.10.2011 whereby the TRC JUDGMENT st rate was revised effective from 1 January, 2008. Perusal of the revised rates appended thereto would show that the rates have been significantly reduced in respect of different types of business. Instead of quoting the revised rates we would like to quote hereinbelow the modified circular dated 25 Page 25 11.10.2011. The English translation of the Circular reads as under:- “ MUNCIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI (Solid Waste Management Department) No. Pra.A/11384/SWM Dated 11.10.2011 CIRCULAR Subject:-: Revision/Modification in the trade refuse charge. For the purpose of recovering Trade refuse charge by Solid Waste Management Department in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, the Mayor’s Council gave approval vide Resolution No.14 dated 15.4.99 to recover the said charge in certain multiplication of licence/registration charge without making any category of the business. According to that procedure, the orders were issued vide Circular Pra. A/17785/SWM dated 14.1.2008, regarding entrusting the responsibility on (1) Licencing Department (2) Shops & Establishment Department (3) health department and (4) Market Department, by co-relating the expenses incurred then for disposal of the waste and the multiplication of licencing/registration charges and also to recover ‘Trade refuse charges’ at the time of renewal of licence and deposit the same under the head ‘Miscellaneous Charges’ of Income under Financial Budget Head of Solid Waste Management Department. JUDGMENT However, considering the complaints/ representations as well as certain other aspects regarding Trade refuse charge, meetings were held with the officials of 1) Licencing Department, Shops & Establishment Department (3) health department and (4) Market Department and after detailed deliberations it was proposed to carry out suitable modifications in Trade refuse charges for which the business people were examined regarding the Trade refuse charge. The examination reports received 26 Page 26

Shops & Establishment Department in proportion with the waste generation, hence it will be continued as per the circular No. Pra.A/6123 dated 05.06.1999. 2) The businesses for which the complaints about the Trade refuse charge being more and in respect of whom changes in the Trade refuse charge have been made in accordance with their waste generation from the year 2008, have been indicated in ‘schedule B-1”. 3) Trade refuse charge for the halls used for marriages and parties is being introduced now. The solid waste generated in halls of schools, colleges and the functions in layout R.G. Plots of the housing societies, is not included in commercial tax. 4) In respect of the business who do not agree with the revised Trade refuse charge, applications may be accepted from them in enclosed format and after examining the same, a report be sent to the concerned Asst. Engineer (S.W.M.) for submitting to Chief Engineer (S.W.M.). JUDGMENT 5) In respect of the business where there are more than one licences, the Trade refuse charge will be levied on the licence of which the fees are more than other licences. 6) Trade refuse charge will be increased by 10 percent every year from the year 2009. 7) In respect of the businesses who have paid the Trade refuse charge at less/more rate than the rate 27 Page 27

Sd/- Chief Engineer (S.W.M.) 11.10.11. Licencing Superintendent.” 20. The Bombay High Court, while passing the impugned order dismissing the writ petitions came to the conclusion that the MMC Act confers power upon the authorities of the respondents to impose conditions at the time of grant of JUDGMENT trade licence and also to recover trade refuse charges. The High Court observed:- “21. The provisions of sections 368(5) and 394(5) read with Section 479 of the MMC Act, in our view, entitle the respondents to impose restrictions and conditions at the time of grant of licence. The same principle will be applicable even at the stage of renewal of licences. The 28 Page 28

JUDGMENT 22. We have already held that there is nothing illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable or unconstitutional in the levy of TRC by the respondents. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in order to assist the appellants, who desire to either postpone or avoid payment of TRC and at the same time enjoy the benefits of a renewed licence. Upon grant of renewal, the MMC shall have to initiate fresh proceedings in order to recover TRC, thereby giving the appellants 29 Page 29 opportunity to resist or delay in the payment of the same. The extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised for such purposes.” 21. As stated above, the constitutional validity of Section

petitions. The power of the Commissioner in fixing and demanding trade refuse charges by the impugned Circular have been questioned in all those writ petitions which are the subject matter of these appeals. The only challenge is the Circular dated 11.10.2011 and the respective entries in the schedule appended thereto issued by the respondents on the ground that the rate fixed in the schedule appended to the Circular is wholly irrational and full of arbitrariness. The main contention made by the appellants are that they JUDGMENT do not generate any trade refuse and, therefore, the rate fixed for levy of TRC is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 30 Page 30 22. Since the constitutional validity of different provisions including Section 368 of the Act was not challenged, we do not think it necessary to go into the vires of the said

Circular dated 11.10.2011 is just and proper or suffers from arbitrariness. 23. There is no dispute with regard to the settled legal proposition that in almost all the statute dealing with legal administration, Municipal Authorities have inevitably to be delegated the power of taxation. The aim and object of the scheme have to be taken into consideration while deciding JUDGMENT the question as to the excessive exercise of power in the matter of collection of fees and charges. 24. However, it would be appropriate to refer the principles laid down by this Court in the case of The Commissioner, 31 Page 31 Hindu Religious Endowment, Madras vs. Sri Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt, (1954) 1 SCR 1005: AIR 1954 SC 282, which according to us will be

appellants. In para 44, this Court observed:

JUDGMENT

interest, but for some special services, rendered or some special work done for the benefit of those from whom payments are demanded. In other words, fees must be levied in consideration of certain services which the 32 Page 32 individual accept willingly or unwillingly. It is also necessary that fees or charges so demanded must be appropriated for that purpose and must not be used for other general public

consent and this element is present in taxes as well as in JUDGMENT fees.

under challenge the decisions relied upon by Mr. Divan and Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the 33 Page 33 appellants, will have no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Be that as it may, it is well settled that an Act delegating power to the local body

(4) In respect of the business who do not agree with the revised Trade refuse charge, applications may be accepted from them in enclosed format and after examining the same, a report be sent to the concerned Asst. Engineer (S.W.M.) for submitting to Chief Engineer (S.W.M.). JUDGMENT (6)Trade refuse charge will be increased by 10 percent every year from the year 2009.”

for making application by persons in respect of particular business who do not agree with the revised trade refuse 34 Page 34 charge may approach the authority by making necessary application and on such application or representation, appropriate response shall be given to those persons, who

Licencee violates principles of natural justice. We, therefore, JUDGMENT hold that respondent shall not recover any increased trade refuse charges with effect from 2009 without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the licencee or persons liable to pay such increased charges. 35 Page 35

do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the High Court in passing impugned order. However, we modify

effect from 2009. The actual increase can be ascertained JUDGMENT and realized in future but not without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the licencee or the persons liable to pay the said increased charges.

appeals stand disposed of with no order as to costs. 36 Page 36 …………………………….J. (M.Y. Eqbal) …………………………….J. (Shiva Kirti Singh) New Delhi February 04, 2015 JUDGMENT 37 Page 37