Panchayat:Repo18/Law Manual Page0316
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Power to cancel licence is only to the Executive authority - District Medical Officer has no power to direct the Executive authorities to cancel the licence. - Fr. Scaria A. Alukkal v. Taluk Panchayat Officer - 1992 (1) KLJ NOC 11.
- Corresponding to S.232 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994] Schedule I, Items 57 and 112-Selling of rice and sugar by retail distributor in ration shops – Licence not required – Under serial No.57 in Schedule 1 of the Rules, selling wholesale or storing for wholesale trade of grains is included. Selling of rice by retail distributor is not included in the Schedule. So also under Serial No. 112 packing, cleansing, preparing or manufacturing by any process what ever of sugar is included. But the storing and selling of sugar is not specifically mentioned in the Schedule. If the respondents have been selling or dealing in sugar and rice they need not take any licence under the Kerala Panchayats (Licensing of Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1963. - Executive Officer, Atholi Panchayat v. Sreedharan – 1987 (2) KLT 698: 1987 (2) KLJ 1416.
- S.96 [corresponding to S.232 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994] - Kerala Panchayats (Licensing of Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1963- Levy of licence fee for use of petitioner's premises under the Rules - Legality – The levy in question is a fee and not a tax. As a fee it should bear a sufficient quid pro quo or co-relation to the special benefits conferred on those called upon to pay the fee or the special services enjoyed by them. Tested in the light of the above principle no special benefit is seen conferred or enjoyed by the payer of the licence fee and no special services are seen being rendered for them, over and above those enjoyed or received by the general public from the Panchayat in the discharge of its general statutory obligations. Therefore the levy of licence fee cannot be sustained. - Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. v. Munnar Panchayat - 1971 KLT 348 FB : 1971 KLJ 393 : ILR 1971 (1) Ker. 554 : 1971 KLR 356.
- S.96 (corresponding to S.232 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994] – Panchayats (Licensing of Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, Sch.l, item 93 - Licence issued under the Kerosene Control Order, 1965 to trade in kerosene - Licence under the Panchayat Act or the rules if necessary – According to S.96 of the Panchayats Act storing oil is a purpose which is likely to be offensive or dangerous to human life or health or property that could be done on taking the necessary licence. If the accused wants to store, prepare or manufacture kerosene within the panchayat area he must take a further licence. Such a licence cannot militate against Ext. D-1 licence held by the accused which envisages retail trade in kerosene. In this view, therefore the Panchayat is in order, in having demanded the tax and the resulted prosecution is also sustainable. - Vijayamma v. Thankappan Pillai - 1967 KLT 966: ILR 1967 (2) Ker. 98.
- Levy of license fee for running gas engines and for storing furnace oil - Services rendered are statutory duties imposed on the Panchayat which they are bound to discharge on the basis of general revenue - Levy not justified - Kerala Panchayats Licensing of Dangerous And Offensive trades and Factories Rules, 1963 - Sch.l items 83 & 93. - Meppadi Co.-operative Society Ltd. v. Executive Officer - 1972 KLT 1065.
- Ss.96 & 97 [corresponding to S.232 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994] - Kerala Panchayats Licensing of Dangerous and Offensive Trades) Rules, 1963 – Levy of fee – Validity of the provisions - The view that Ss.96 & 97 of the Act and the Licensing of Dangerous Trades and Factories Rules framed thereunder are invalid, cannot be accepted as correct. - Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. v. Munnar Panchayat - 1971 KLT 348 FB : 1971 KLJ 393 : ILR 1971 (1) Ker. 554 : 1971 KLR 356.
- Ss.96 & 97 [corresponding to S.232 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994] - Panchayats Licensing of Dangerous Offensive Trades and Factories Rules, 1963, Sch.l, item 83 - Imposing licence fee for storing fuel and keeping machinery for manufacturing tea - Panchayat maintaining a cattle pound and running a school if sufficient 'quid pro quo' justifying levy - Fee, tax and fee for licence - Distinction - Constitution of India, Art.265 – There is no indication anywhere in the evidence that the amount demanded is just sufficient to meet the expenses of the licence. Even if the fee is construed as a tax as contended for the Panchayat, the levy cannot be justified because the Panchayat cannot levy a tax in the guise of a licence fee. For the imposition of a tax it is mandatory that before the tax is levied, the provisions of Ss.66 to 81 of the Act are complied with. The levy therefore cannot be supported by any one of the three heads namely, "fee for licence", "fee for services rendered" and "fee in the nature of a tax. – Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd. v. Executive Officer, Elappara Panchayat & Others – 1968 KLT 776 FB : ILR 1968 (2) Ker. 416.
- Ss.96 & 97 [corresponding to S.232 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994], Object of – Provision for licence and permission for running rice mill – State legislature if competent to enact – Constitution of India, Art.246 - Ss.96 & 97 of the Panchayats Act relate only to matters mentioned in entry 6 of the State List; and they do not entrench on entry 52 in the Union List. Therefore the State Legislature was competent