JUDGMENT : Bachawat, J. 1. S. 270-B(1) of the Madras District Municipalities Act (Madras Act V of 1920) provided: "The Municipal Council may construct or provide and maintain public places, halting places and cart stands and may levy fees for the same......." 2. The Cannanore Municipal Council made available one acre and 80 cents of land for a bus stand on the eastern side of the railway gate in the Cannanore town. The bus stand is necessary because the railway gate is frequently closed for purposes of shunting of railway wagons and engines. The land belongs to the municipality. Formerly, the municipality used to levy a fee for the use of the bus stand from the bus operators at the rate of 50 (np. per) bus per day. The legality of this levy is not challenged. With effect from April 1, 1961 the municipality raised the fee to Re. 1/- per bus per day. Some of the bus operators affected by the increased levy filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Court to quash the increased levy on the ground that it was not a fee and was not authorised by S. 270-B(1). Vaidialingam J. allowed the petition. He found that (1) there was no co-relation between the levy and the expenses incurred for the service and (2) the collections went into the common account of the municipality and were not kept separate. On those findings he held that the increased levy did not satisfy the test of a fee as laid down in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamtiar, AIR. 1954, S.C. 282 and Rattilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay AIR. 1954 S.C. 388. See also Nagar Mahanalika, Varanasi v. Durga Dass Bhatacharya Civil Appeal 558 of 1967 (S.C.). This judgment was affirmed in Letters Patent appeal by a Division Bench. The Municipal Council, Cannanore, has filed the present appeal after obtaining special leave. 3. The affidavits show that the collections at the rate of Re. (1)/- per bus per day amounted to about Rs. 2500/- per month. The monthly expenses incurred by the municipality for the maintenance of the bus stand and incidental matters were about Rs. 381/- per month. The Municipal Council, Cannanore, has filed the present appeal after obtaining special leave. 3. The affidavits show that the collections at the rate of Re. (1)/- per bus per day amounted to about Rs. 2500/- per month. The monthly expenses incurred by the municipality for the maintenance of the bus stand and incidental matters were about Rs. 381/- per month. In order to explain the wide gulf between the collections and the expenses the municipality alleged that the land set apart for the bus stand if let out in small plots would have fetched a rental of about Rs. 4000/- per month, and this loss of rent should be treated as another item of expenses. Undoubtedly the rent at which the land in its existing physical condition might reasonably he expected to let would be a relevant item of expense. But the municipality made no attempt to prove this rent. The Courts below rightly refused to take into account the imaginary income which the municipality might have obtained by parcelling out the land into small plots suitable for construction of sheds and shop buildings. The affidavits show that the bus stand is a profitable enterprise. In the municipal accounts, the income from the bus-stand was shown under the head "remunerative enterprise". The affidavits filed on behalf of the municipality give the impression that the surplus income is spent for maintaining all the main roads in the town. Having regard to all the materials on the record we are inclined to think that the income from the bus stand is considerably higher than the expenses incurred for maintaining it and the surplus is being used for other purposes. In agreement with the Court below we hold that there is no reasonable co-relation between the increased levy and the expenses incurred for rendering the services. It follows that the increased levy does not satisfy the test of a fee. It is, therefore, not necessary to consider the further question whether the increased levy could not be considered to be a fee by reason of the fact that the collections went into the common account of the municipality and was not kept separate. 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. We make no order as to costs.