Judgment :- 1. The writ applicant who is the proprietor of a Cinema Theatre called Padmanabha Talkies situate within the Kollengode Panchayat has impugned the validity of the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act, 1961. The local authority the Kollengode Panchayat, the second respondent to this writ application, has levied a tax at the rate of 20 per cent on each payment for admission to any entertainment pursuant to the power conferred on, it by S.3 of the above mentioned Act. That section is in these terms : "3. General provisions regarding tins levy of the tax and the rate of tax. Any local authority may levy a tax (hereinafter referred to as the entertainments tax) at a rate not less than ten per cent and not more than twenty-five per cent on each payment for admission to any entertainment."" The grounds on which the Section is attacked are that it amounts to excessive delegation in that (a) it gives uncontrolled power to the local authorities to fix the tax at any rate not exceeding 25 per cent and (b) that the power granted has been given to all the local bodies and so each could act in any way it liked and thus create inequalities, 2. It appears to me that the points raised in this writ application are covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Corporation of Calcutta & another v. Liberty Cinema reported in Civil Appeal No. 266 of 1964. The certified copy of the judgment in that case has been made available to me by the learned Advocate General who appeared on behalf of the first and second respondents to this writ application, the State of Kerala and the Kollengode Panchayat respectively. 3. The question that their Lordships of the Supreme Court had to consider is very similar to the one that is raised before me in this writ application. They were concerned with the imposition of a licence fee on Cinema Theatres by the Calcutta Municipality under the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. 3. The question that their Lordships of the Supreme Court had to consider is very similar to the one that is raised before me in this writ application. They were concerned with the imposition of a licence fee on Cinema Theatres by the Calcutta Municipality under the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. S.548 (2) of the above Act provides that "Except when it is in this Act or in any rule or by-law made thereunder otherwise expressly provided for every such license or written permission a fee may be charged at such rate as may from time to time be fixed by the Corporation and such fee shall be payable by the person to whom the licence or written permission is granted." Holding that the imposition in the particular case amounted to the imposition of a tax the question whether the fixing of the rate of tax is an essential legislative function was considered and Their Lordships came to the conclusion that "This therefore is clear authority that the fixing of rates may be left to a non-legislative body." 4. They further observed: "No doubt when the power to fix rates of taxes is left to another body, the legislature must provide guidance for such fixation. The question then is, was such guidance provided in the Act? We first wish to observe that the validity of the guidance cannot be tested by a rigid uniform rule; that must depend on the object of the Act giving power to fix the rate. It is said that the delegation of power to fix rates of taxes authorised for meeting the needs of the delegate to be valid, must provide the maximum rate that can be fixed, or lay down rules indicating that maximum. We are unable to see how the specification of the maximum rate supplies any guidance as to how the amount of the tax which no doubt has to be below the maximum, is to be fixed Provision for such maximum only sets out a limit of the rate to be imposed and a limit is only a limit and not a guidance. It seems to us that there are various decisions of this Court which support the proposition that for a statutory provision for raising revenue for the purposes of the delegate, as the section now under consideration is, the needs of the taxing body for carrying out its functions under the statute for which alone the taxing power was conferred on it, may afford sufficient guidance to make the power to fix the rate of tax valid " Their Lordships thereafter considered the decisions and the provisions in S.126 and 127 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 and came to the conclusion that there is sufficient guidance in the Act for fixing the rate of tax and therefore upheld the levy. 5. The only distinction in this case as far as I can see is that S.3 of the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act, 1961 has fixed a minimum and a maximum for the rate of tax that can be imposed. The power to levy is conferred on local bodies including the Panchayats. I see no distinction between a'Panchayat' and a'Municipality' in this regard for both are statutory authorities created by statutes and are functioning for the purpose of discharging duties and obligations and for exercising powers, which are very similar. In both cases it would be correct to say that the power granted to levy fees and taxes are meant to raise funds requisite for the purpose of discharging obligations and duties cast on these bodies by the statutes which have created them. S.78 of the Kerala Panchayat Act is not similarly worded as S.127 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. In substance, both provide for the same thing. The drawing up of a budget showing the receipts and expenditure of the local bodies and a scrutiny by a higher authority as to whether the budget has provided for the essential requisites of the body could, I think, in the light of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court, afford sufficient guidance in the exercise of the power conferred for levying tax such as is contained in S.3. This section is therefore not bad for the reason that there has been excessive delegation of legislative powers without any guidance being furnished for the exercise of the delegated power. This section is therefore not bad for the reason that there has been excessive delegation of legislative powers without any guidance being furnished for the exercise of the delegated power. Nor can it be said that the section has conferred powers on different local bodies and has thus enabled those who are similarly placed being treated differently. On the other hand, I am inclined to take the view that if the need of the local body is the guidance for the fixation of the rate of tax, the conferment of power on one authority like the State Government would have been bad. I need hardly say that the needs of these different local bodies would not be the same. The rate of tax also therefore must differ and that is the reason perhaps the power is conferred on different local bodies. I do not find anything wrong in this either. 6. I dismiss this writ application but make no order as to costs. Dismissed.