Judgment :- 1. The main prayer in these writ applications is to declare the provision in S.66(3) of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 and R.3 and 4 of the Kerala Panchayats (Service Taxes) Rules, 1962 unconstitutional and void. 2. S.66(3) of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 runs thus:-"66. Taxes, cess, etc., which may be levied by Panchayats, (1) (2) (3) Service taxes not exceeding such rates as may be prescribed for sanitation, water supply, scavenging, street lighting and drainage may be levied with the sanction of the Director." 3. The levy with which we are concerned in these writ applications is the tax relating to street lighting and the provision regarding that is contained in the rule, the Kerala Panchayats (Service taxes) Rules, 1962. R.3 and 4 of these rules are relevant and they read as follows: "3. (1) The service taxes shall be levied with the sanction of the Director at such percentages of the annual rental value of all buildings or lands or both within the Panchayat area, not exceeding the maximum rates shown in R.4, save those exempted by or under the Act or any other law. (2) The Panchayat may with the previous sanction of the Director exempt any person or class of persons residing in any particular part of the Panchayat area from the levy of all or any of the service taxes, on the ground that such area is not deriving full benefit from such services. (3) The service taxes shall be levied annually and be payable in two half-yearly instalments. (4) The service taxes leviable under sub-section (3) of S.66 of the Act shall not exceed the following maximum rates, namely: (i) Sanitary tax 'to provide for expenses connected with the general sanitation of the Panchayat area and removal of rubbish, filth or carcasses of animals from private premises; 1 per cent (ii) Water tax to provide for expenses connected with the construction, maintenance and repair, extension or improvement of water works hereto force provided or hereafter to be provided; 2 per cent (iii) Lighting tax to provide for expenses connected with the lighting of the Panchayat area by gas, electricity or other means; 2 per cent (iv) Drainage tax to provide for expenses connected with the construction, maintenance and repair, extension or improvement of drainage works heretofore provided or hereafter to be provided;1 per cent" 4. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner has contended that there is no legislative competence for providing for a tax relating to street lighting The argument is that such a tax cannot be imposed under any of the items in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the 1st respondent. Panchayat, on items 5 and 49 in List II to the seventh Schedule, justifying the levy. 5. Our attention has been invited to the provisions of the Municipal Acts and the earliest Act referred to is the Cochin Municipal Act II of 1096. This Act was passed on the 13th June 1921 and S.41 thereof provided that the property tax which comprises the tax for general purposes may also comprise (a) a water and drainage tax to provide for expenses connected with the construction, maintenance, repair, extension or improvement of water or drainage works heretofore provided or hereafter to be provided; (b) a lighting tax to provide for expenses connected with the lighting of the municipality by gas or electricity. 6. We find a similar provision in S.80 of the District Municipalities Act, XXIII of 1116 which was in force in the Travancore State wherein also it is said that the property tax may comprise a tax for general purposes as well as a lighting tax provided for expenses connected with the lighting of the municipality by gas or electricity. The same provision is seen in S.99 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960. We consider that those provisions which were in force at the time of the passing of the Constitution are relevant for the purpose of understanding the scope and ambit of item 49 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution which is in these terms: "Taxes on lands and buildings". 7. These we must interpret as empowering the State Legislature to pass enactments providing for the imposition of tax in regard to lighting. If that be so, provision can be made for street lighting as well. 8. We are not impressed by the argument advanced by counsel on behalf of the petitioner that unlike the Municipal Acts referred to there is no specific provision made in the Panchayat Act imposing a tax on lighting. If that be so, provision can be made for street lighting as well. 8. We are not impressed by the argument advanced by counsel on behalf of the petitioner that unlike the Municipal Acts referred to there is no specific provision made in the Panchayat Act imposing a tax on lighting. This has reference only to the manner in which the statute has been drafted and cannot affect either the substance or the competence of the Legislature to impose a tax. If the Legislature has authority to empower the local authority, the Panchayats concerned, to levy a tax for street lighting, because a power to impose property tax implies a power to impose a tax for lighting the absence of a specific provision does not matter. We are of the view that a power to impose property tax implies a power to impose a lighting tax. 9. We may also add that it is stated in Para.7 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Panchayat that the expenditure involved for the purpose of the lighting in the Panchayat area will approximate to the amount realised as lighting tax. On the basis of this averment counsel for the Panchayat also said that the impost can be justified as a fee under item 66 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. In the view that we have taken, it is unnecessary to consider this argument. 10. The only other contention that was raised before us and which remains to be dealt with is the contention about excessive delegation. The power granted under S.66(3) is controlled and guided by the wording of the section which indicates the purposes. Apart from that, the power is also circumscribed by the rules to be framed by Government which they have done. We are not satisfied that there is any excessive delegation either. 11. We see no merits in these writ applications. We dismiss them but without any order as to costs. Dismissed.