RUSHABH OUTDOORS AND ANR vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Court
Bombay High Court
Case type
Writ Petition
Decided on
06-04-2026
<div> <b>2026:BHC-OS:8293-DB</b><br /> <i>WP-227-2027.doc</i><br /> <br /> <b>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</b><br /> <b>ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION</b><br /> <b>WRIT PETITION NO.227 OF 2017</b><br /> 1. Rushabh Outdoors, Thane ]<br /> 2. Vandana Borse, ]<br /> Proprietor of M/s. Synnovation, Mumbai ] .. Petitioners<br /> <b><i> Versus</i></b><br /> 1. The State of Maharashtra, ]<br /> 2. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ] .. Respondents<br /> Mr. Navroz Seervai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aseem Naphade,<br /> Mr. Akash Rebello, Mr. Jatin Sheth, Ms. Chaitra Rao and Ms.<br /> Meera Parmar, Advocates for the Petitioners.<br /> Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General with Mr. Milind V. More,<br /> Additional Government Pleader and Mr. Jay Sanklecha, “B” Panel<br /> Counsel f or Respondent No.1-State of Maharashtra.<br /> Mr. Suresh B. Pakale, Senior Advocate with Ms. K. H. Mastakar<br /> i/by Ms. Komal Punjabi, Advocates for Respondent No.2-MCGM.<br /> <b> CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ. &amp; </b><br /> <b> GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.</b><br /> <b>th</b><br /> <b>Reserved on </b> <b> : 16</b> <b> December 2025.</b><br /> <b>th </b><br /> <b>Pronounced on : 06</b> <b>April 2026 </b><br /> <b>JUDGMENT</b><br /> <b>Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, C.J. :</b> <br /> M/s. Rushabh Outdoors which is a partnership firm and<br /> represented through its partners, namely, Navnit Haria and<br /> Zaverben Liladhar Haria is joined by the proprietress of M/s.<br /> Synnovation, namely, Vandana Borse in laying a challenge to sub-<br /> section (2) of section 479 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation<br /> 1<br /> Act, 1888 . The petitioners are seeking a declaration that sub-<br /> section (2) of section 479 of the MMC Act is unconstitutional and<br /> liable to be struck down. They are aggrieved by Resolution No.999<br /> passed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai in its<br /> th<br /> meeting held on 11 December 2009 by which a revision in the<br /> schedule of fees for the advertisement license issued under<br /> 1<br /> MMC Act<br /> 1<br /> <i>Panchal</i><br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 00:15:22 :::</i></b><br /><br /> <i>WP-227-2027.doc</i><br /> <br /> sections 328 and 328A of the MMC Act was approved and<br /> increased by 80 <i>percent</i> of the prevailing rate for one year and<br /> then it is to be increased by 10 <i>percent</i> <i>per annum</i> every following<br /> year. The petitioners have challenged the power of the<br /> Commissioner to fix the rates of license fees and it is in that<br /> context that they are raising a question to the constitutional<br /> validity of sub-section (2) of section 479 of the MMC Act.<br /> 2. The petitioners state that they obtain a license from the<br /> Municipal Corporation under sections 328/328A of the MMC Act<br /> on payment of license fees for carrying on the business of outdoor<br /> publicity. The Municipal Corporation proposed a revision in the<br /> license fees for the permissions granted under sections 328 and<br /> th<br /> 328A and the said proposal contained in the letter dated 4<br /> November 2009 was considered by the Law Committee and it was<br /> decided to take approval of the Municipal Corporation. The<br /> reasons for seeking a revision in the license fees are said to be the<br /> rising expenditure for the establishment of the Municipal<br /> Corporation, an increase in the wholesale price index and service<br /> costs, decline in the revenue of the Municipal Corporation from<br /> the license fees etc. However, the information received by them<br /> through the RTI is that the Municipal Corporation has reserves<br /> and surplus of Rs.47244.56 crores (excluding inter budget<br /> contributions) and its consolidated income far exceeds its<br /> expenditure. The petitioners have provided the details of the<br /> license fees collected by the Municipal Corporation for the period<br /> between 2007 to 2016 and endeavored to demonstrate that the<br /> total income of the Municipal Corporation from the advertising<br /> licenses constitutes about 69 <i>percent</i> of the total collection of the<br /> License Department. The petitioners blame the Commissioner for<br /> not applying his mind before proposing increase in the license<br /> 2<br /> <i>Panchal</i><br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 00:15:22 :::</i></b><br /><br /> <i>WP-227-2027.doc</i><br /> <br /> fees. They say that the Municipal Corporation also did not apply<br /> its mind and approved the proposal for increase in the license fees<br /> in a mechanical manner inasmuch as there was no discussion in<br /> th<br /> the meeting of the Municipal Corporation held on 11 December<br /> 2009. They contend that the effect of 10 <i>percent</i> increase in<br /> perpetuity in the license fees is excessive, arbitrary and<br /> unreasonable and violates their fundamental rights under Articles<br /> 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. <br /> 3. In the affidavit-in-reply, the respondents have narrated the<br /> procedure for granting permission for advertisement and claim<br /> that several high-ranking officers of different departments<br /> including the officers in the rank of Assistant Commissioner are<br /> involved in the entire process at different stages and it is not true<br /> that the License Department alone is involved in the whole<br /> process. The Municipal Corporation has taken a preliminary<br /> objection to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of<br /> delay and laches on the part of the petitioners to challenge the<br /> th<br /> impugned resolution dated 11 December 2009. It has set up an<br /> objection on the ground of constructive <i>res judicata</i> as a similar<br /> challenge made to the impugned resolution was dismissed in “ <i>Yog</i><br /> <i>2</i><br /> <i>Advertising and Marketing Services</i> <i>&quot;</i> . It is pleaded that the<br /> impugned resolution has been in operation for more than eight<br /> years and the petitioners availed advertising rights under the said<br /> resolution on payment of license fees in previous years. Before<br /> <i>“Yog Advertising and Marketing Services”</i> , there was an increase in<br /> the license fees in the year 1996 and that was the subject matter<br /> of challenge in Writ Petition No.735 of 1997. There was again a<br /> revision in license fees in the year 2003 to the extent of about<br /> 2<br /> <i>Yog Advertising and Marketing Services &amp; Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater </i><br /> <i>Mumbai &amp; Anr. 2016 SCC OnLine Bom. 62</i><br /> 3<br /> <i>Panchal</i><br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 00:15:22 :::</i></b><br /><br /> <i>WP-227-2027.doc</i><br /> <br /> 100% in the schedule of fees and that continued for about five<br /> years. Thereafter, a new guidelines for exhibiting sign boards and<br /> th<br /> hoardings became operational on 10 January 2008 and the High<br /> Court passed an order in Writ Petition No.1132 of 2002 directing<br /> the Municipal Corporation to implement the new guidelines which<br /> entailed a complete study of the existing hoardings and about 225<br /> hoardings were removed and 485 licenses were revoked. Since the<br /> last increase in the schedule of fees, there has been substantial<br /> increase in the expenditure of various departments of the<br /> Municipal Corporation. Similarly, there has been increase in the<br /> wholesale price index and costs of services which necessitated<br /> increase in the license fees and an annual increase by 10%. The<br /> Municipal Corporation has emphatically denied that there was no<br /> rationale for increase in the license fees and states as under: -<br /> <i>“14. I deny that the rationale given by the Corporation for the</i><br /> <i>increase in the fee is incorrect. The decline in the revenues ought to</i><br /> <i>be considered as compared to the expenditure of the various</i><br /> <i>departments of the Corporation, the increase in the wholesale price</i><br /> <i>index, the growing expenditure and the various services rendered.</i><br /> <i>The comparison of the expenditure only towards the operative</i><br /> <i>functioning of the license department from the revenue of the</i><br /> <i>hoardings is misconceived and erroneous. Considering the increase</i><br /> <i>in the license fees by 100% after a gap of 6 years and an annual</i><br /> <i>increase of 10% can be no stretch of imagination and logical</i><br /> <i>reasoning be considered to be unreasonable and unjustified. The cost</i><br /> <i>of administering the municipal services has also increased year to</i><br /> <i>year. In the year 2003-04, the cost of administering municipal</i><br /> <i>services was 5366.26 Cr. In 2007-08, it was 10585 Cr. It recites</i><br /> <i>that the cost of living has been rapidly increasing. The value of</i><br /> <i>Rupee has also gone down substantially. Whilst the Petitioners</i><br /> <i>earned substantial revenue from the hoardings that the Corporation</i><br /> <i>believes substantially increased over the years, the hoarding owners</i><br /> <i>are grudging a reasonable justified increase in the license fee</i><br /> <i>charged by the Corporation. </i> <i> I deny that there is any</i><br /> <i>th</i><br /> <i>unreasonableness in the Resolution dated 11</i> <i> December 2009 or</i><br /> <i>that the same, in any manner, is excessive or harsh.”</i><br /> 4. Mr. Navroz Seervai, the learned senior counsel for the<br /> petitioners submitted that sub-section (2) to section 479 confers<br /> an unguided, uncanalized and arbitrary powers on the<br /> 4<br /> <i>Panchal</i><br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 00:15:22 :::</i></b><br /><br /> <i>WP-227-2027.doc</i><br /> <br /> Commissioner for levying license fees on sky-signs and<br /> advertisements, and the delegation of such arbitrary powers on<br /> the Municipal Commissioner shall be an infraction of Article 14 of<br /> the Constitution. There is no policy laid down by the Legislature<br /> and no standard has been set down for guidance of the<br /> Commissioner to fix the rates of license fees and the manifest<br /> arbitrariness in conferring such unguided powers on the<br /> Commissioner cannot be covered up on the ground of a dormant<br /> or latent legislative policy. The Legislature must set limits of the<br /> power delegated by law through a clear guidance for those on<br /> whom the power to execute law has been conferred [ <i>per</i> , “ <i>Kishan</i><br /> <i>3</i><br /> <i>Prakash Sharma”</i> ]. The learned senior counsel referred to “ <i>Devi</i><br /> <i>4</i><br /> <i>Das Gopal Krishnan&quot;</i> and further submitted that the Legislature<br /> cannot efface itself in the matter of fixation of rates without giving<br /> any guidance. Rather, the Legislature must provide guidance for<br /> fixation of the rates of taxes when power to fix such rates is left to<br /> a body or authority and such guidance must flow from the statute<br /> 5<br /> [ <i>per</i> , “ <i>Liberty Cinema</i> ” ]. It is no safeguard in the matter of fixation<br /> of the rate of license fees that the Municipal Corporation<br /> supervises the acts of the Commissioner. The impugned resolution<br /> does not provide any indication as to how the Municipal<br /> Corporation approved the proposal for increase in the license fees<br /> and the impugned resolution was passed mechanically without<br /> any application of mind.<br /> 5. <i>Per contra</i> , Dr. Birendra Saraf, the learned Advocate General<br /> submitted that Article 243-X is an enabling provision and it does<br /> not mandatorily require the Legislature of a State to enact a law<br /> authorizing the Municipality to levy, collect and appropriate taxes,<br /> 3<br /> <i> Kishan Prakash Sharma &amp; Ors. v. Union of India &amp; Ors.:(2001) 5 SCC 212</i><br /> 4<br /> <i> Devi Das Gopal Krishnan v. State of Punjab:1967 SCC OnLine SC 108</i><br /> 5<br /> <i> Corporation of Calcatta &amp; Anr. v. Liberty Cinema:1964 SCC OnLine SC 65</i><br /> 5<br /> <i>Panchal</i><br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 00:15:22 :::</i></b><br /><br /> <i>WP-227-2027.doc</i><br /> <br /> duties, tolls or fees. There are certain provisions in Part IX-A of the<br /> Constitution of India such as Article 243-Q, Article 243-R, Article<br /> 243-S, Article 243-T, Article 243-U, Article 243-V, Article 243-ZA,<br /> Article 243-ZD and Article 243-ZF which are mandatory<br /> provisions. Whereas, Article 243-W and Article 243-X wherein the<br /> expression “the State Legislature may” has been used are the<br /> enabling provisions. It is the ordinary rule of interpretation that<br /> the word “may” is used to grant a discretion and not to impose a<br /> mandatory direction and no special circumstance has been shown<br /> by the petitioners to infer a mandatory direction in clause (a) of<br /> Article 243-X to the State Legislature to enact a law providing the<br /> procedure and limits to levy, collect and appropriate taxes, duties,<br /> <i>6</i><br /> tolls and fees [ <i>per</i> , “ <i>Sahodara Devi”</i> ]. Clause (a) of Article 243-X<br /> does not in any manner suggest that the Legislature of a State is<br /> under any obligation to lay down a procedure or to provide limits<br /> in the statute which authorizes the Municipality to collect license<br /> fees. The learned Advocate General further contended that the use<br /> of expression “as may be prescribed” leaves a discretion with the<br /> State Legislature to specify the procedure or limits for levying or<br /> <i>7</i><br /> collecting fees [ <i>per</i> , <i>“Orient Paper Mills”</i> ]. Supporting him,<br /> Mr.Suresh B. Pakale, the learned senior counsel for the Municipal<br /> Corporation submitted that the license fees levied and collected by<br /> the Municipal Corporation can be in return for the services<br /> rendered by it, to defray the costs of administration and to<br /> increase the general funds of the Municipal Corporation. <br /> 6. At the outset, we may indicate that the objection raised by<br /> the respondents on the ground of delay and laches in raising the<br /> question of constitutional validity of sub section (2) to section 479<br /> 6<br /> <i> Sahodara Devi (Smt) &amp; Ors. v. Govt. of India &amp; Anr.:(1972) 3 SCC 156</i><br /> 7<br /> <i> Orissa State (Prevention &amp; Control of Pollution) Board v. Orient Paper Mills &amp; Anr.:</i><br /> <i>(2003)10 SCC 421</i><br /> 6<br /> <i>Panchal</i><br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 00:15:22 :::</i></b><br /><br /> <i>WP-227-2027.doc</i><br /> <br /> of the MMC Act was rejected at the initial stage of hearing of this<br /> writ petition. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court rejected the<br /> technical objection based on the principles of <i> </i> constructive <i> res</i><br /> <i>judicata</i> by referring to the decision in <i> “Amalgamated Coalfields</i><br /> <i>8</i><br /> <i>Ltd.</i> <i>,</i> wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the<br /> constructive <i> res judicata</i> being special and artificial form of <i> res</i><br /> <i>judicata</i> is generally not applied to writ proceedings under Article<br /> 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court further held that<br /> the writ petition may not be rejected on the ground of delay and<br /> laches wherever an infraction of the fundamental right is alleged<br /> <i>qua</i> a challenge to an enactment or its provision. The co-ordinate<br /> <i>9</i> <i>10</i><br /> Bench referred to <i>“Basheshar Nath</i> , <i> Olga Tellis</i> <i> </i> and “ <i>Re : Kerala</i><br /> 11<br /> <i>Education Bill</i> ” and held that there can be no waiver of<br /> fundamental rights and a citizen cannot be said to have lost his<br /> fundamental rights on the ground that it was not exercised for a<br /> long time or not at all. Furthermore, the writ petition cannot be<br /> dismissed on the ground that the aggrieved party had been paying<br /> the tax without objection for years. The real test to determine<br /> whether a writ petition may not be entertained on the ground of<br /> delay is whether any parallel right was created in the meantime<br /> and the lapse of time is not attributable to any laches or<br /> negligence on the part of aggrieved party.<br /> 7. The question posed is whether section 479 of the MMC Act,<br /> which provides as under, suffers from excessive delegation:<br /> <i>“</i> <b><i>479. Licences and written permissions to specify condition</i></b><br /> <b><i>etc., on which they are granted.—</i></b> <i> </i><br /> <i>(1) </i> <i>Whenever it is provided in this Act that a licence or a written</i><br /> 8<br /> <i> Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. &amp; Anr. v Janpada Sabha, Chhindwara &amp; Ors.:1962</i><br /> <i>SCC OnLine SC 72</i><br /> 9<br /> <i> Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi &amp; Rajasthan &amp; Anr.:</i> 1958<br /> SCC OnLine SC 7<br /> 10<br /> <i> Olga Tellis &amp; Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation &amp; Ors.:1985 (3) SCC 545</i><br /> 11<br /> Re : The Kerala education Bill :1957 AIR 1958 SC 956<br /> 7<br /> <i>Panchal</i><br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 00:15:22 :::</i></b><br /><br /> <i>WP-227-2027.doc</i><br /> <br /> <i>permission may be given for any purpose, such licence or written</i><br /> <i>permission shall specify the period for which, and the restrictions</i><br /> <i>and conditions subject to which, the same is granted, and shall be</i><br /> <i>given under the signature of the Commissioner or of a municipal</i><br /> <i>officer empowered under section 68 to grant the same.</i><br /> <i>(2) </i> <b><i>Fees to be chargeable.—</i></b> <i> For every such licence or written</i><br /> <i>permission a fee may be charged at such rate as shall from time to</i><br /> <i>time be fixed by the 1 [Commissioner], with the sanction of the</i><br /> <i>Corporation.</i><br /> <i>(3) </i> <b><i>Licences and written permissions may be revoked, etc.—</i></b><br /> <i>Subject to the provisions of 2 [clauses (d) and (dd)] of section 403,</i><br /> <i>any licence or written permission granted under this Act may at any</i><br /> <i>time be suspended or revoked by the Commissioner, if any of its</i><br /> <i>restrictions or conditions is infringed or evaded by the person to</i><br /> <i>whom the same has been granted, or if the said person is convicted</i><br /> <i>of an infringment of any of the provisions of this Act or of any</i><br /> <i>regulation or by-law made hereunder in any matter to which such</i><br /> <i>licence or permission relates.</i><br /> <i>(4) </i> <b><i>When licence or written permission is revoked, etc.,</i></b><br /> <b><i>grantee to be deemed to be without a licence or written</i></b><br /> <b><i>permission.—</i></b> <i> When any such licence or written permission is</i><br /> <i>suspended or revoked or when the period for which the same was</i><br /> <i>granted has expired the person to whom the same was granted</i><br /> <i>shall for all purposes of this Act, be deemed to be without a licence</i><br /> <i>or written permission until the Commissioner’s order for suspending</i><br /> <i>or revoking the licence or written permission is cancelled by him or</i><br /> <i>until the licence or written permission is renewed, as the case may</i><br /> <i>be.</i><br /> <i>(5) </i> <b><i>Grantees to be bound to produce licence or written</i></b><br /> <b><i>permission.— </i></b> <i>Every person to whom any such licence or written</i><br /> <i>permission has been granted shall at all reasonable times while</i><br /> <i>such written permission or licence remains in force, if so required by</i><br /> <i>the Commissioner produce such licence or written permission.”</i><br /> 8. In the context of the challenge to sub-section (2) to section<br /> 479 of the MMC Act, it is necessary to examine the ambit and<br /> scope of Article 243-X which is reproduced as under :-<br /> <i>&quot;</i> <b><i>243X. Power to impose taxes by, and Funds of, the</i></b><br /> <b><i>Municipalities</i></b> <i>.—</i><br /> <i>The Legislature of a State may, by law,—</i><br /> <i>(a) </i> <i>authorise a Municipality to levy, collect and appropriate such</i><br /> <i>taxes, duties, tolls and fees in accordance with such procedure and</i><br /> <i>subject to such limits;</i><br /> <i>(b) </i> <i>assign to a Municipality such taxes, duties, tolls and fees</i><br /> <i>levied and collected by the State Government for such purposes and</i><br /> 8<br /> <i>Panchal</i><br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 00:15:22 :::</i></b><br /><br /> <i>WP-227-2027.doc</i><br /> <br /> <i>subject to such conditions and limits;</i><br /> <i>(c) </i> <i>provide for making such grants-in-aid to the Municipalities</i><br /> <i>from the Consolidated Fund of the State; and</i><br /> <i>(d) </i> <i>provide for constitution of such Funds for crediting all moneys</i><br /> <i>received, respectively, by or on behalf of the Municipalities and also</i><br /> <i>for the withdrawal of such moneys therefrom,</i><br /> <i>as may be specified in the law.&quot;</i><br /> 9. The Legislature of a State has wide powers to make laws. It<br /> has multiple duties under the Constitution but the Legislature in<br /> a welfare State cannot presumably conceive and contemplate all<br /> the details while formulating a particular legislative policy. It may<br /> enact a law to delegate its subsidiary or ancillary powers for<br /> carrying out the policy laid down in the statute. Therefore, the<br /> Legislature can reserve in itself the final control over subordinate<br /> legislation and delegate the ancillary powers of working out the<br /> details for executing the legislative policy. This is also no longer in<br /> the realm of doubt that the power to fix the rates of taxes and fees<br /> <i>12</i><br /> may be legitimately left to the executive. In <i>“Harishankar Bagla”</i> ,<br /> the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Legislature must declare<br /> the policy of the law and the legal principles which are to control<br /> any given case and must provide a standard to guide the officials<br /> or the body in power to execute the law. The Hon’ble Supreme<br /> Court further held that the statements in the preamble to the Act<br /> may provide sufficient indication as to the legislative<br /> <i>13</i><br /> policy. <i>“Vasantlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala”</i> also clearly recognized<br /> the necessity and need to delegate subsidiary or ancillary powers<br /> to the delegates for carrying out the legislative policy laid down by<br /> the Legislature in the statute. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held<br /> that the inquiry whether the impugned delegation involves a<br /> delegation of essential legislative power should take into account<br /> 12<br /> <i> Harishankar Bagla &amp; Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh: (1954) 1 SCC 978</i><br /> 13<br /> <i> Vasantlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala v. The State of Bombay &amp; Ors.:1960 SCC OnLine</i><br /> <i>SC 27</i><br /> 9<br /> <i>Panchal</i><br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 00:15:22 :::</i></b><br /><br /> <i>WP-227-2027.doc</i><br /> <br /> the statement in the preamble to the statute. The Court held that<br /> the statements made in the preamble itself would be sufficient to<br /> satisfy the requirements of the relevant tests if the statements<br /> made therein afford satisfactory basis for holding that the<br /> legislative policy and the principles have been enunciated in the<br /> preamble with sufficient accuracy and clarity. In such cases, the<br /> discretion can be left with the executive to determine the quantum<br /> of license fees and it shall not violate the provisions under Article<br /> 243-X or for that matter any constitutional provision including<br /> Part-III of the Constitution.<br /> rd<br /> 10. The Constitution (73 Amendment) Act and Constitution<br /> th<br /> self-bodies<br /> (74 Amendment) Act infused a new life to the local like<br /> the Panchayats and Municipalities which are constituted as the<br /> institutions of self-government. The object behind vesting certain<br /> powers and authority in the municipalities is to enable them to<br /> function as the institutions of self-government. Article 243-W<br /> envisages that the law made by the Legislature of a State may<br /> contain provisions for devolution of powers and responsibilities<br /> upon the Municipalities. The State Legislatures have enacted laws<br /> and made provisions for devolution of powers upon the<br /> Panchayats and the Municipalities for the social and economic<br /> development of the rural and urban areas. The functions of the<br /> Municipalities are, therefore, necessary to be borne in mind while<br /> interpreting the laws enacted by a State. The Mumbai Municipal<br /> Corporation Act, 1888 was enacted to replace the Bombay<br /> Municipal Act, 1872 which was amended in the year 1878 to<br /> regulate the municipal administration of the City of Bombay. The<br /> statement of objects and reasons appended to the Bill to enact the<br /> Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 records that the MMC<br /> Act consolidates the existing Municipal laws. The object was to<br /> 10<br /> <i>Panchal</i><br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 00:15:22 :::</i></b><br /><br /> <i>WP-227-2027.doc</i><br /> <br /> recast, to amend and to expand the provisions of the Bombay<br /> Municipal Acts, 1872 and 1878. At that time, there were nine<br /> minor enactments and other local statutes which dealt with the<br /> matters affecting the Municipal governance in the city. Except<br /> retaining certain parts of such enactments with necessary<br /> modifications, expansions and improvements, all those<br /> enactments were repealed. It is further indicated that the long<br /> experience of the working of the existing laws and other<br /> enactments in force elsewhere were taken into consideration to<br /> supply sufficient powers to the Commissioner for carrying out and<br /> enforcing such measures under the MMC Act as are necessary for<br /> achieving the object. The past experience also supported the<br /> wisdom of centering all authority and responsibility for executive<br /> action in the Municipal Corporation. <br /> 11. The Municipal bodies need flexibility to raise funds as per<br /> their budgetary needs and that may provide enough guidance and<br /> the delegation of taxing power cannot be held excessive or<br /> <i>14</i><br /> unconstitutional. In <i>“George Walkem Shannon”</i> , the Privy<br /> Council rendered its opinion that the fees should be charged in<br /> order either to defray the costs of administering the local<br /> regulation or to increase the general funds of the province or for<br /> both purposes. If a levy is imposed with a view to provide a<br /> specific service and to recover expenses for maintaining the<br /> <i>15</i><br /> services then that would be in the nature of a fees and not a tax.<br /> In case of fees, the Government may do some positive work for the<br /> benefit of the persons but the fee is not always a return for the<br /> work done or services rendered. In “ <i>Liberty Cinema</i> ” it was held<br /> 14<br /> <i> George Walkem Shannon &amp; Ors. v. Lower Mainland Dairy Products Board &amp; Anr: </i><br /> <i>1938 SCC OnLine PC 52</i><br /> 15<br /> <i> H. H. Sudhundra Thirtha Swamiar &amp; Ors. v. Commissioner for Hindu Religious &amp; </i><br /> <i>Charitable Endowments, Mysore &amp; Anr.:1962 SCC OnLine SC 188</i><br /> 11<br /> <i>Panchal</i><br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 00:15:22 :::</i></b><br /><br /> <i>WP-227-2027.doc</i><br /> <br /> that the word “fee” is sometimes used loosely and it is not always<br /> that fees can be charged only for the services. In that case, the<br /> Corporation of Calcutta was not required to provide any specific<br /> services to the cinema houses and levy of the fees was in reality a<br /> tax. It was held that as long as a local body has a budget and<br /> needs to raise funds, delegation of taxing power shall be valid<br /> even without providing a maximum limit. The Hon’ble Supreme<br /> Court further indicated that the fees for license and the fees for<br /> services rendered are two different kinds of levy contemplated in<br /> the Constitution. The fees for license cannot be equated with fees<br /> for services rendered and this is apparent on a bare reading of<br /> Articles 110(2) and 199(2) of the Constitution of India. This is an<br /> admitted position that the license fees charged by the<br /> Commissioner for granting advertisement permissions is a fee and<br /> not in the nature of a tax imposed in the guise of fees. Therefore,<br /> the general principles for examining the validity of the delegation<br /> of power to impose a tax or to fix the rates of taxes cannot be<br /> applied in this case.<br /> 12. Mr. Navroz Seervai, the learned senior counsel for the<br /> petitioners contended that the law enacted by the State<br /> Legislature authorizing a Municipality to collect appropriate<br /> taxes, duties, tolls and fees must lay down a procedure for<br /> collection and appropriation of such taxes etc. and must also<br /> provide such limits on the quantum of license fees that can be<br /> fixed over a given period of time. He contended that the word<br /> “procedure” for determination of the license fees and the word<br /> “limits” for fixing the quantum of the license fees must be given<br /> its full effect as no word or words in a statutory provision can be<br /> 16<br /> treated as superfluous [ <i>per</i> , <i>“Mithilesh Singh”</i> ]. In our opinion,<br /> 16<br /> <i> Mithilesh Singh v. Union of India &amp; Ors.:(2003) 3 SCC 309</i><br /> 12<br /> <i>Panchal</i><br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 00:15:22 :::</i></b><br /><br /> <i>WP-227-2027.doc</i><br /> <br /> it is however not correct to say that the Legislature of a State<br /> when decides to enact a law authorizing a Municipality to levy,<br /> collect and appropriate the license fees then it must specify a<br /> procedure and the limits to the license fees. There is no<br /> requirement in law to provide minimum or maximum rate of<br /> license fees and the power conferred on the Commissioner is not<br /> unguided or arbitrary. A delegation of power to fix the rate of<br /> license fees is not open to challenge on the ground that no<br /> procedure or limits has been provided. In <i>“The Western India</i><br /> <i>17</i><br /> <i>Theatres Ltd.</i> <i>”, </i> the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the<br /> authorization to the Municipality to impose taxes for the<br /> purposes of Act shall furnish sufficient guidance for imposition of<br /> <i>18</i><br /> tax. In <i>“Delhi Race Club Limited”</i> <i>,</i> the Hon’ble Supreme Court<br /> held that if there is some legislative policy for fixation of the rate<br /> of fees that by itself shall provide sufficient guidance to the<br /> delegate. The test whether any guidance, check, control or<br /> safeguard has been provided in the statute shall apply only to the<br /> cases of delegation of the fixation of rate of tax and not of the<br /> fees. It is also well settled that what should be the form of<br /> guidance that the legislative policy should lay down can be<br /> gathered from the preamble, object and reasons and the<br /> provisions of the statute.<br /> 13. The majority judgment in <i>“Vasantlal Maganbhai</i><br /> <i>Sanjanwala” </i> which upheld section 6(2) of the Bombay Tenancy &amp;<br /> Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 held that there was a legislative<br /> policy laid down by the Act in its preamble and relevant sections<br /> and that provided sufficient guidance to the government to fix a<br /> lower rate of maximum rents payable by the tenant in any<br /> 17<br /> <i> The Western India Theatres Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Poona:1959</i><br /> <i>SCC OnLine SC 28 </i><br /> 18<br /> <i> Delhi Race Club Limited v. Union of India &amp; Ors.: (2012) 8 SCC 680.</i><br /> 13<br /> <i>Panchal</i><br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 00:15:22 :::</i></b><br /><br /> <i>WP-227-2027.doc</i><br /> <br /> <i>19</i><br /> particular area. The decision in <i>“Krishna Mohan (P) Ltd.&quot;</i> deals<br /> with an entirely different fact situation and the power to fix the<br /> rate of license fees did not arise in that case. Similarly, the<br /> decision in <i>“Kishan Prakash Sharma&quot;</i> was rendered in the context<br /> of the delegation of powers to frame general scheme for re-<br /> organization of the insurance business. Pertinently, this decision<br /> provides a valuable guideline and lays down the test for the<br /> validity of the delegated legislation. This decision held that if the<br /> preamble of the statute, the background facts leading to<br /> enactment of the statute, history of the legislation, complexity of<br /> the problems etc. provide guidelines then a particular legislation<br /> must be upheld. The provisions relating to imposition of tax are<br /> definitely guided by different considerations and the decision in<br /> <i>“Devi Das Gopal Krishnan&quot;</i> , which dealt with the amendment to<br /> section 5 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 do not avail<br /> any help to the petitioners. In <i>“Kandivali Co-Operative Industrial</i><br /> <i>20</i><br /> <i>Estate”</i> <i>, </i> there was a 10% increase every year in the Trade Refuse<br /> Charges (TRC) which was held arbitrary and without any<br /> guidelines and the Corporation was directed not to recover the<br /> TRC at the hiked rate from the year 2009 without giving<br /> reasonable opportunity of hearing to the licensee or the persons<br /> liable to pay such increased TRC. The case projected by the<br /> aggrieved parties was that they did not generate any TRC and they<br /> were not liable to levy of the TRC upon them. The Hon’ble<br /> Supreme Court held that the Legislature can delegate its power to<br /> the statutory authority to levy tax or fees and fix the rates and the<br /> delegation of such power to the local body without providing a<br /> maximum rate of tax or fees does not by itself may render the<br /> 19<br /> <i> Krishna Mohan (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi &amp; Ors.: (2003) 7 SCC 151.</i><br /> 20<br /> <i> Kandivali Co-Operative Industrial Estate &amp; Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater</i><br /> <i>Mumbai &amp; Ors.: (2015) 11 SCC 161</i><br /> 14<br /> <i>Panchal</i><br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 00:15:22 :::</i></b><br /><br /> <i>WP-227-2027.doc</i><br /> <br /> delegation excessive or invalid.<br /> 14. Mr. Navroz Seervai, the learned senior counsel next<br /> contended that the law made by the Legislature of a State vesting<br /> such powers and authority in the Municipalities as may be<br /> necessary to enable them to function as the institutions of self-<br /> government shall be subject to other provisions of the<br /> <i>21</i><br /> Constitution. In <i>“Shanti G. Patel &amp; Ors.”</i> <i>,</i> the Hon’ble Supreme<br /> Court held that Article 243-W of the Constitution of India is an<br /> enabling provision under which the State Legislature may endow<br /> by law the Municipality with such powers and authority, as may<br /> be necessary, to function as an institution of self government. In<br /> <i>“Shanti G. Patel”</i> the Constitutional validity of section 37(1-AA) of<br /> the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 was<br /> called into question on the ground that the Municipal Corporation<br /> was alone competent to make subordinate legislation as regards<br /> the town planning. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the State<br /> Legislature is not obliged to provide for a law empowering the<br /> Municipality with powers and authority to levy tax, toll fees etc.<br /> under Article 243-W of the Constitution of India. We are of the<br /> definite opinion that expression “subject to the provisions of this<br /> Constitution” puts a bar on the power of Legislature of a State to<br /> make law endowing the Municipalities such powers and authority<br /> which should not impinge upon the powers of other institutions or<br /> authority as to the matters enumerated under Article 243-W of the<br /> Constitution. The heading “Powers, authority and responsibilities<br /> of Municipalities, etc.” of Article 243-W of the Constitution of India<br /> makes it very explicit and provides as under:-<br /> <b><i>“Article 243-W.</i></b> <b><i>Powers, authority and responsibilities of</i></b><br /> <b><i>Municipalities, etc.-</i></b><br /> 21<br /> <i> Shanti G. Patel &amp; Ors. v. State of Maharashtra &amp; Ors.: (2006) 2 SCC 505, </i><br /> 15<br /> <i>Panchal</i><br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 00:15:22 :::</i></b><br /><br /> <i>WP-227-2027.doc</i><br /> <br /> <i>Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a</i><br /> <i>State may, by law, endow-</i><br /> <i>(a) </i> <i>the Municipalities with such powers and authority as</i><br /> <i>may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of</i><br /> <i>self-government and such law may contain provisions for the</i><br /> <i>devolution of powers and responsibilities upon Municipalities,</i><br /> <i>subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, with</i><br /> <i>respect to-</i><br /> <i>(i) </i> <i>The preparation of plans for economic development</i><br /> <i>and </i> <i> and social justice;</i><br /> <i>(ii) </i> <i>The performance of functions and the implementation</i><br /> <i>of schemes as may be entrusted to them including those in</i><br /> <i>relation to the matters listed in the Twelfth Schedule;</i><br /> <i>(b) </i> <i>the Committees with such powers and authority as</i><br /> <i>may be necessary to enable them to carry out the</i><br /> <i>responsibilities conferred upon them including those in</i><br /> <i>relation to the matters listed in the Twelfth Schedule.”</i><br /> 15. Except to the extent that the law made by the Legislature of<br /> a State must be in consonance with the constitutional mandate<br /> under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, we do not find<br /> any force in the aforesaid submission. The power to make a law to<br /> authorize a municipality to levy, collect and appropriate taxes,<br /> duties, tolls and fees under Article 243-X is subject to the<br /> limitations as afore-mentioned and nothing more. The<br /> th<br /> Constitution (74 Amendment) Act does not contemplate that the<br /> existing laws would become non-operative and a vacuum would be<br /> created in the matter of enforcement of the existing laws. Article<br /> 243-X cannot be read in isolation and sub-section (2) to section<br /> 479 is not <i>ultra vires</i> to Article 243-X. The MMC Act has been in<br /> th<br /> existence much prior to 74 amendment and any attack on the<br /> constitutionality of any provision thereof must be considered with<br /> special caution. Sub-section (2) to section 479 of the MMC Act is<br /> not inconsistent or repugnant with Article 243-X or any part of the<br /> Constitution and Article 243-ZF has no application to the MMC<br /> Act. The MMC Act is a pre-Constitution enactment and no<br /> provision thereof is inconsistent with Part-III of the Constitution of<br /> 16<br /> <i>Panchal</i><br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 00:15:22 :::</i></b><br /><br /> <i>WP-227-2027.doc</i><br /> <br /> India. The power conferred under sub-section (2) on the<br /> Commissioner to fix the license fees is not at all an unguided<br /> power and there are sufficient guidelines and safeguards for fixing<br /> of the license fees. We do not agree with Mr. Navroz Seervai, the<br /> learned senior counsel that no policy or principle has been<br /> enunciated by the Legislature and no guidance is provided to the<br /> Commissioner to fix the license fees. <br /> 16. <i> </i> There are two facets of an impost of the license fees. License<br /> fees can be regulatory or the fees for services. The license fees can<br /> be regulatory when the activities for which a license is given<br /> require to be regulated or controlled and an element of <i>quid pro</i><br /> <i>quo</i> for the levy of such fees is not required [ <i>vide,“Secunderabad</i><br /> <i>22</i><br /> <i>Hyderabad Hotel Owners’ Association &amp; Ors.”</i> ]. The Municipal<br /> Corporation has to perform multiple task and provide a variety of<br /> services. But the fees in every services provided by the Municipal<br /> Corporation cannot be determined with mathematical exactitude.<br /> <i>23</i><br /> In <i>“Avinder Singh</i> <i>, </i> the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the<br /> Legislature can impose multiple taxes under different entries in<br /> the Constitution. For example; a bottle of liquor can be subjected<br /> to excise duty as well as a tax and also municipal tax. In “ <i>Pandit</i><br /> <i>24</i><br /> <i>Banarsi Das Bhanot”</i> <i>, </i> the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the<br /> delegation of power to the executive to identify the persons on<br /> whom tax is to be levied or to decide the rates of tax to be charged<br /> on different class of goods or other ancillary subjects shall be a<br /> valid delegation so long as the Legislature retains or has the power<br /> of withdrawing or altering the power to tax. In <i>“Sreenivasa General</i><br /> 22<br /> <i> Secunderabad Hyderabad Hotel Owners’ Association &amp; Ors. v. Hyderabad</i><br /> <i>Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad &amp; Anr.: (1999) 2 SCC 274.</i><br /> 23<br /> <i> Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab &amp; Anr.: (1979) 1 SCC 137 </i><br /> 24<br /> <i>Pandit Banarsi Das Bhanot &amp; Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh &amp; Ors. 1958 SCC</i><br /> <i>OnLine SC 25</i><br /> 17<br /> <i>Panchal</i><br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 00:15:22 :::</i></b><br /><br /> <i>WP-227-2027.doc</i><br /> <br /> <i>25</i><br /> <i>Traders”</i> , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the co-<br /> relationship between the levy and the services rendered (sic or)<br /> expected is one of general character and not of mathematical<br /> exactitude and all that is necessary is that there should be a<br /> ‘reasonable relationship’ between the levy of the fees and the<br /> services rendered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :- <br /> <i>“7.</i> <b><i> </i></b> <i>It is not always possible to work out with mathematical precision</i><br /> <i>the amount of fee required for the services to be rendered each year</i><br /> <i>and to collect only just that amount which is sufficient for meeting</i><br /> <i>the expenditure in that year. In some years, the income of a market</i><br /> <i>committee by way of market fee and licence fee may exceed the</i><br /> <i>expenditure and in another year when the development works are in</i><br /> <i>progress for providing modern infrastructure facilities, the</i><br /> <i>expenditure may be far in excess of the income. It is wrong to take</i><br /> <i>only one particular year or a few years into consideration to decide</i><br /> <i>whether the fee is commensurate with the services rendered. An</i><br /> <i>overall picture has to be taken in dealing with the question whether</i><br /> <i>there is quid pro quo i.e. there is correlation between the increase in</i><br /> <i>the rate of fee from 50 paise to rupee one and the services</i><br /> <i>rendered.”</i><br /> 17. In <i>“Yog Advertising and Marketing Services”</i> the Division<br /> Bench of this Court held that there is a direct co-relation between<br /> the license fees and the services rendered and the proposed 10%<br /> annual increase in the license fees was justified. The surplus<br /> funds or the quantum of collection of license fees has no<br /> co-relation with the license fees for the advertisement promotions.<br /> It is not necessary that the services rendered out of the fees<br /> collected should be directly in proportion to the amount of fees<br /> collected or the services rendered in lieu of the fees collected<br /> should confine to the persons from whom the fees has been<br /> <i>26</i><br /> collected [ <i>vide</i> , <i>“Kesoram Industries Ltd.”</i> ]. In paragraph no.146<br /> of the reported judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as<br /> 25<br /> <i> Sreenivasa General Traders &amp; Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh &amp; Ors.: (1983) 4 SCC</i><br /> <i>353.</i><br /> 26<br /> <i> State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. &amp; Ors.: (2004) 10 SCC 201. </i><br /> 18<br /> <i>Panchal</i><br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 00:15:22 :::</i></b><br /><br /> <i>WP-227-2027.doc</i><br /> <br /> under :-<br /> <i>“146.</i> <b><i> ……...</i></b> <i> It is not necessary that the services rendered from out</i><br /> <i>of the fee collected should be directly in proportion with the amount</i><br /> <i>of fee collected. It is equally not necessary that the services</i><br /> <i>rendered by the fee collected should remain confined to the persons</i><br /> <i>from whom the fee has been collected. Availability of indirect benefit</i><br /> <i>and a general nexus between the persons bearing the burden of</i><br /> <i>levy of fee and the services rendered out of the fee collected is</i><br /> <i>enough to uphold the validity of the fee charged. The levy of the</i><br /> <i>impugned cess can equally be upheld by reference to Entry 66 read</i><br /> <i>with Entry 5 of List II.”</i> <br /> 18. The process of regulation and licensing of the hoardings,<br /> sky-signs and advertisements is not simple. It involves the officers<br /> at ward level and co-ordination between different departments.<br /> The municipal authorities including the Commissioner are<br /> charged with the duty to carry out the provisions of the MMC Act.<br /> The duties and powers of the municipal authorities are set out in<br /> different provisions of the MMC Act. The power to fix the license<br /> fees is exercised by the Commissioner while granting written<br /> permission to erect, fix or retain any sky-sign, advertisement etc. <br /> 19. Section 328 of the MMC Act regulates the sky-signs to the<br /> extent that a written permission of the Municipal Corporation is<br /> necessary to erect, fix or retain any sky-sign and such written<br /> permission shall not exceed two years from the date of permission<br /> or renewal so granted. It further provides that the Commissioner<br /> shall cause a scrutiny of the sky-sign which is in the form of a<br /> poster depicting any scene from a cinematographic film, stage play<br /> or other stage performance and he shall grant permission only if<br /> he is satisfied that the erection or fixing of such poster is not likely<br /> to offend against decency or morality. Similarly, the regulation and<br /> control of the advertisements vest with the Commissioner under<br /> section 328A of the MMC Act who may grant written permission to<br /> 19<br /> <i>Panchal</i><br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 00:15:22 :::</i></b><br /><br /> <i>WP-227-2027.doc</i><br /> <br /> erect, exhibit, fix or retain any advertisement upon any land,<br /> building wall, hoarding or structure. There are policy guidelines<br /> on the grant of permission for the display of sky-signs and<br /> advertisements. The last edition of such policy guidelines was<br /> th<br /> issued on 10 January 2008. It is stated that there was a need for<br /> further regulation because of the complaints by the residents<br /> about (a) screening of light and ventilation by the residents due to<br /> discriminate erection of hoardings (b) dispute among the housing<br /> society members (c) dispute raised by the landlords of the building<br /> who claimed that they were not aware of the permission to the<br /> Agency (d) clandestine cutting of trees for the better visibility of<br /> the advertisement (e) hoardings causing obstruction to the<br /> visibility of other advertisements and other issues connected<br /> therewith. The area falling within the limits of Municipal<br /> Corporation has been divided into three zones and each zone<br /> consists of different wards. The standard sizes of the hoardings for<br /> each zone have been provided. It is further provided that tenders<br /> shall be invited whenever required by the Corporation for tri-vision<br /> backlit boards having certain size for the footpath with minimum<br /> width size of 15 feet on selected roads. This is also provided that<br /> the advertiser shall have to pay additional charges/premium as<br /> decided by the Commissioner for the backlit advertisement boards<br /> on BEST bus queue shelters.<br /> 20. There is a new guidelines under which several measures are<br /> indicated. A provision has been made for prohibiting the<br /> advertisement on moving vehicles, transfer of sign-boards on<br /> municipal lands and not to permit sign-boards on first search<br /> basis. There are several items under the license fees schedule<br /> which were excluded from the revised fees schedule. The various<br /> regulations relating to the advertisements, hoarding boards, sky-<br /> 20<br /> <i>Panchal</i><br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 00:15:22 :::</i></b><br /><br /> <i>WP-227-2027.doc</i><br /> <br /> signs etc. shall be part of the procedure for levying fees by the<br /> Commissioner. The policy guidelines provide the permissible<br /> colours of advertisement, bottom clearance of the hoarding board,<br /> maximum height of the hoarding board, minimum distance<br /> between two hoarding boards, alignment of hoardings, clubbing of<br /> hoardings, projection of hoardings etc. In our opinion, the<br /> parameters laid down thereunder shall provide sufficient<br /> guidelines to the Commissioner to adopt a procedure for levying<br /> the fees. There is a format of the application form under appendix<br /> “A” which requires definite information such as medium of<br /> advertisements applied for; illuminated and non-illuminated form<br /> of advertisement; temporary and non-temporary; application made<br /> by a charitable Trust-Institutions for display of free banner<br /> academic/religious/public awareness/health political and other<br /> purposes, name of ward offices, dimensions in length, width,<br /> height etc. and site location. Pertinently, Annexure-II appended to<br /> the guidelines provides the schedule of fees for advertisement<br /> permits issued under section 328 and 328A of the MMC Act for<br /> the advertisements under the business and non-business<br /> categories. We further find that Annexure-II provides the scale of<br /> fees and the rates of fees under different category. For the sake of<br /> clarity, we may reproduce a part of Annexure-II as under:<br /> <i>ANNEXURE-II</i><br /> <b><i>Group ‘A’ Advertisement other than Business Premises</i></b><br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>Sr.&lt;br&gt;No.</th><th>Description</th><th>Scale of licence&lt;br&gt;fees</th><th>Rates of fees in Rs.&lt;br&gt;(p.m.)</th><th></th><th>Rates of&lt;br&gt;fees in&lt;br&gt;Rs.&lt;br&gt;(p.m.)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>A&lt;br&gt;Category&lt;br&gt;for Zone&lt;br&gt;H1 &amp; H2</td><td>B&lt;br&gt;Categor&lt;br&gt;y for&lt;br&gt;Zone H3</td><td>Propose&lt;br&gt;d</td></tr><tr><td>1.</td><td>a) Illuminated&lt;br&gt;Advertisement on</td><td>i) For a space&lt;br&gt;upto 1 sq. mt.</td><td>300</td><td>230</td><td>--</td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> 21<br /> <i>Panchal</i><br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 00:15:22 :::</i></b><br /><br /> <i>WP-227-2027.doc</i><br /> <br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>hoardings or&lt;br&gt;board/wall&lt;br&gt;paintings or&lt;br&gt;balloon or in the&lt;br&gt;form of sky sign&lt;br&gt;and illuminated&lt;br&gt;hoardings or&lt;br&gt;boards on vehicle</th><th>ii) For every&lt;br&gt;additional 1&lt;br&gt;sq.mt. or part&lt;br&gt;thereof</th><th>230</th><th>160</th><th>--</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>b) Illuminated&lt;br&gt;advertisement by&lt;br&gt;means of&lt;br&gt;computerized&lt;br&gt;coloured/multi&lt;br&gt;coloured graphic&lt;br&gt;tricycle moving&lt;br&gt;electronic display&lt;br&gt;system.</td><td>i) For a space&lt;br&gt;upto 1 sq.mt.&lt;br&gt;ii) For additional&lt;br&gt;1 sq.mt. or&lt;br&gt;part thereof.</td><td>450&lt;br&gt;320</td><td>350&lt;br&gt;240</td><td>--&lt;br&gt;--</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>c) For display of&lt;br&gt;pictorial&lt;br&gt;advertisement</td><td>--</td><td>--</td><td>--</td><td>1/6 of&lt;br&gt;admissi&lt;br&gt;ble&lt;br&gt;illumina&lt;br&gt;ted&lt;br&gt;advertis&lt;br&gt;ement&lt;br&gt;fees</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>d) Non-illuminated&lt;br&gt;Advertisement on&lt;br&gt;hoardings or&lt;br&gt;board/wall&lt;br&gt;paintings or&lt;br&gt;balloon or in the&lt;br&gt;form sky sign&lt;br&gt;and non-&lt;br&gt;illuminated&lt;br&gt;hoardings or&lt;br&gt;boards on&lt;br&gt;vehicle.</td><td>i) For a space&lt;br&gt;upto 1 sq.mt.&lt;br&gt;ii) For every&lt;br&gt;additional 1&lt;br&gt;sq.mt. or less</td><td>120&lt;br&gt;70</td><td>90&lt;br&gt;54</td><td>--&lt;br&gt;--&lt;br&gt;--&lt;br&gt;--</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>e) Advertisement&lt;br&gt;fixed or&lt;br&gt;suspended in&lt;br&gt;streets and or&lt;br&gt;footpath (such as&lt;br&gt;cloth banners&lt;br&gt;etc.) (Non-&lt;br&gt;illuminated)</td><td>i) For a space&lt;br&gt;upto 1 sq.mt.&lt;br&gt;ii) For every&lt;br&gt;additional 1&lt;br&gt;sq.mt. or less</td><td>--&lt;br&gt;--</td><td>--&lt;br&gt;--</td><td>90&lt;br&gt;54</td></tr><tr><td>2.</td><td>Advertisement on&lt;br&gt;Auto Rickshaws &amp;&lt;br&gt;Taxies</td><td>-</td><td></td><td></td><td>As per&lt;br&gt;C.R.No.&lt;br&gt;42 dtd.&lt;br&gt;21/06/&lt;br&gt;02 the&lt;br&gt;has&lt;br&gt;been</td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> 22<br /> <i>Panchal</i><br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 00:15:22 :::</i></b><br /><br /> <i>WP-227-2027.doc</i><br /> <br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>revised</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>i) For illuminated&lt;br&gt;advertisement&lt;br&gt;boards.</td><td>i) For a space&lt;br&gt;upto 1 sq.mt.</td><td>--</td><td>--</td><td>350</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>ii) For&lt;br&gt;additional 1&lt;br&gt;sq.mt.</td><td>--</td><td>--</td><td>350</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>ii) For non-&lt;br&gt;illuminated&lt;br&gt;advertisement&lt;br&gt;boards</td><td>i) For a space&lt;br&gt;upto 1 sq.mt.</td><td>--</td><td>--</td><td>170</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>ii) For&lt;br&gt;additional 1&lt;br&gt;sq. mt.</td><td>--</td><td>--</td><td>170</td></tr><tr><td>3.</td><td>Temporary&lt;br&gt;advertisement&lt;br&gt;permit issued for&lt;br&gt;commercial purpose.</td><td>--</td><td>--</td><td>--</td><td>150% of&lt;br&gt;monthly&lt;br&gt;normal&lt;br&gt;fees</td></tr><tr><td>4.</td><td>Ground Rent as per&lt;br&gt;guideline No.17B for&lt;br&gt;First Finder&lt;br&gt;Scheme.&lt;br&gt;(Hoardings on&lt;br&gt;Municipal&lt;br&gt;properties)</td><td>--</td><td>Rs.500/-&lt;br&gt;per sq.ft.&lt;br&gt;P.A.</td><td>Rs.250/&lt;br&gt;- per&lt;br&gt;sq.ft.&lt;br&gt;P.A.</td><td>As per&lt;br&gt;C.R.&lt;br&gt;No.1370&lt;br&gt;dtd.&lt;br&gt;30/07/&lt;br&gt;2001&lt;br&gt;the fees&lt;br&gt;has&lt;br&gt;been&lt;br&gt;revised</td></tr><tr><td>5.</td><td>As per guideline&lt;br&gt;17C Ground Rent&lt;br&gt;for hoardings on&lt;br&gt;Municipal footpath.&lt;br&gt;(Only projection)</td><td>--</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>A)</td><td>1) Projected&lt;br&gt;advertisement&lt;br&gt;boards upto 3 fts.&lt;br&gt;(running foot) on&lt;br&gt;Municipal footpath.</td><td>--</td><td>--</td><td>--</td><td>15000&lt;br&gt;P.A.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2) More than 3 fts.&lt;br&gt;&amp; upto 5 fts.</td><td>--</td><td>--</td><td>--</td><td>25000&lt;br&gt;P.A.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>3) More than 5 fts.&lt;br&gt;&amp; upto 7.5 fts.</td><td>--</td><td>--</td><td>--</td><td>40000&lt;br&gt;P.A.</td></tr><tr><td>B)</td><td>1) For the portion 1&lt;br&gt;ft. width &amp; 20 fts.&lt;br&gt;Length projected&lt;br&gt;parallel on&lt;br&gt;Municipal footpath.</td><td>--</td><td>--</td><td>--</td><td>20000&lt;br&gt;P.A.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2) For the portion 1&lt;br&gt;ft. width &amp; length&lt;br&gt;more than 20 fts.&lt;br&gt;Upto 40 fts.</td><td>--</td><td>--</td><td>--</td><td>40000&lt;br&gt;P.A.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>3) For the portion 1&lt;br&gt;ft. &amp; 2.5 fts. width&lt;br&gt;&amp; upto 20 fts.&lt;br&gt;Length</td><td>--</td><td>--</td><td>--</td><td>30000&lt;br&gt;P.A.</td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> 23<br /> <i>Panchal</i><br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 00:15:22 :::</i></b><br /><br /> <i>WP-227-2027.doc</i><br /> <br /></div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>4) For the portion 1&lt;br&gt;ft. &amp; 2.5 fts. width&lt;br&gt;&amp; length more than&lt;br&gt;20 fts. Upto 40 fts.</th><th>--</th><th>--</th><th>--</th><th>60000&lt;br&gt;P.A.</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> <i>……………………………………………………………………………………………………..</i><br /> <i>……………………………………………………………………………………………………..</i><br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>1.</th><th>Non-illuminated&lt;br&gt;advertisement forming&lt;br&gt;sky signs.</th><th>i) For a space upto 1&lt;br&gt;sq.mt.</th><th>70</th><th>55</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td>ii) For every additional&lt;br&gt;sq.mt. or part&lt;br&gt;thereof.</td><td>50</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>2.</td><td>For illuminated name&lt;br&gt;boards sky signs, Glow&lt;br&gt;Signs &amp; Neon Sign&lt;br&gt;illuminated show&lt;br&gt;cases, show rooms etc.</td><td>i) For a space upto 1&lt;br&gt;sq.mt.</td><td>180</td><td>140</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>ii) For every additional&lt;br&gt;sq.mt. or part thereof</td><td>150</td><td>120</td></tr><tr><td>3.</td><td>Transfer of permits</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>a) To legal heirs</td><td></td><td></td><td>500</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>b) To other than&lt;br&gt;legal heirs</td><td></td><td></td><td>2000</td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> 21. There is a reference of the previous resolution of the<br /> th<br /> Municipal Corporation dated 10 September 2004 with reference<br /> to which the revised rate schedule was determined for certain<br /> categories. There is a foundation laid for increase in license fees<br /> by 80 percent for one year and then an increase by 10 percent for<br /> the further years. It is stated in the proposal moved by the<br /> Commissioner that there was increase in the cost of<br /> establishment, service charges and cost of other services provided<br /> by the Municipal Corporation in the last several years after the<br /> th<br /> last rate schedule was approved on 13 January 2003. However,<br /> in view of the decision in <i>“Yog Advertising and Marketing Services”,</i><br /> we need not further elaborate upon the submissions made by Mr.<br /> Navroz Seervai, the learned senior counsel that the increase in<br /> licence fees @ 10% p.a. is excessive or arbitrary. Sub section (2) of<br /> Section 479 of the MMC Act is valid and does not suffer from vice<br /> of excessive delegation and is <i>intra-vires </i> to the Constitution of<br /> India.<br /> 24<br /> <i>Panchal</i><br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 00:15:22 :::</i></b><br /><br /> <i>WP-227-2027.doc</i><br /> <br /> 22. Mr. Navroz Seervai, the learned senior counsel submitted<br /> that a provision requiring the sanction of the Municipal<br /> Corporation on the rates fixed by the Commissioner is not an<br /> effective measure or safeguard for fixation of the license fees as<br /> the Municipal Corporation itself shall be deemed to have been<br /> exercising its executive power and not the legislative power. The<br /> Municipal Corporation is conceived under section 5 as the body<br /> corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal. It<br /> consists of 227 Councillors directly elected at ward election and<br /> 10 nominated Councillors having special knowledge and<br /> experience in municipal administration. The Municipal<br /> Corporation which consists of the persons who themselves shall<br /> be required to pay license fees shall definitely exercise greater<br /> control over the power of the Commissioner to levy license fees.<br /> Dr. Birendra Saraf, the learned Advocate General referred to the<br /> <i>27</i><br /> decision in <i>&quot;Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills, Delhi”</i> and<br /> contended that this is an important circumstance that the<br /> Municipal Corporation is an elected body and responsible and<br /> answerable to the people. In our opinion, it is not correct to say<br /> that the Municipal Corporation cannot exercise an effective control<br /> and supervision over the exercise of powers by the Commissioner<br /> under sub-section (2) to section 479 of the MMC Act. There is an<br /> inherent democratic check on the exercise of powers by the<br /> Commissioner. The Municipal Corporation is a representative<br /> body and it takes decision on behalf of the public. The impugned<br /> resolution was examined by the representative body in Municipal<br /> Corporation and its decision symbolizes a good faith.<br /> 27<br /> <i> Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills, Delhi &amp; </i><br /> <i>Anr.: 1968 SCC OnLine SC 13.</i><br /> 25<br /> <i>Panchal</i><br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 00:15:22 :::</i></b><br /><br /> <i>WP-227-2027.doc</i><br /> <br /> 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, Writ Petition No.227 of<br /> 2017 is dismissed. <br /> <b> [ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ]</b> <b> </b> <b> [ CHIEF JUSTICE ] </b><br /> Digitally signed<br /> by PRAVIN<br /> DASHARATH<br /> PANDIT<br /> Date:<br /> 2026.04.06<br /> 23:55:37 +0530<br /> PRAVIN<br /> DASHARATH<br /> PANDIT<br /> 26<br /> <i>Panchal</i><br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 00:15:22 :::</i></b></div>