Delegation of power to fix license fees without statutory limits does not constitute unconstitutional excessive delegation.

The Petitioners, partnership firms and proprietors engaged in the outdoor publicity business, challenged the constitutional validity of Section 479(2) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (MMC) Act, 1888

They further challenged Resolution No. 999 (passed on 11th December 2009), which revised the schedule of fees for advertisement licenses under Sections 328 and 328A of the MMC Act

This resolution imposed an initial 80% increase in license fees, followed by a 10% annual increase in perpetuity

The Petitioners contended that Section 479(2) confers unguided and arbitrary power upon the Municipal Commissioner to fix rates, violating Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution

The Respondents defended the levy as necessary to meet rising establishment costs and service expenditures, arguing that the provision contains sufficient democratic safeguards

The Court applied Article 243-X of the Constitution, determining it to be an enabling provision rather than a mandatory one due to the use of the word "may"

It relied on the doctrine of delegated legislation established in Kishan Prakash Sharma v. Union of India and Vasantlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala v. State of Bombay, which holds that delegation is valid if the legislative policy is discernible from the preamble and the statute's objectives

The Court followed Corporation of Calcutta v. Liberty Cinema, noting that taxing/fee-fixing powers can be delegated to local bodies to meet budgetary requirements

Furthermore, it applied the principle from Sreenivasa General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which clarifies that quid pro quo for fees does not require mathematical exactitude but only a reasonable relationship between the levy and the services provided

The Court rejected the argument of excessive delegation, holding that the MMC Act provides sufficient policy guidance through its preamble and the overarching responsibility of the Commissioner to regulate municipal administration

It interpreted Article 243-X as allowing the State Legislature discretion to specify limits "as may be prescribed," rather than imposing a rigid requirement to set maximum caps in the parent Act

The Court distinguished between "fees for licenses" and "fees for services," noting that the former need not always be a direct return for work done

Crucially, the Court found that Section 479(2) is not unguided because the Commissioner's power is subject to the "sanction of the Corporation"—an elected, representative body that acts as a democratic check

Regarding the 10% annual hike, the Court noted that a previous Division Bench in Yog Advertising and Marketing Services had already upheld the rationale for such increases based on rising administrative costs and inflation

The Court also found that detailed policy guidelines regarding advertisement sizes and safety provided sufficient procedural safeguards for the levy

The Court concluded that the power to fix license fees is guided by the statutory scheme and the requirement of prior sanction from the elected Municipal Corporation

The challenge to the 10% annual fee increase was rejected as being neither arbitrary nor unreasonable in the context of municipal governance and administrative necessity