Judgment :- 1. S.284 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960 authorises a Municipal Council to publish by notification in the Gazette, that no place within the municipal limits shall be used for any one or more purposes specified in Schedule III without the licence of f the Commissioner, and except in accordance with the conditions specified therein. One of the purposes mentioned in Schedule III, with which we are concerned in this writ appeal, is the preparing or storing or selling copra, wholesale. The writ petitioner whose writ petition was dismissed, and who is the appellant before us, was called upon by Ext. P1 notice to take out a licence under S.284 and 285 of the Act for 1968-69 in respect of his premises specified therein, which according to the notice, was being used for the purpose of the copra export trade. The writ petitioner approached this Court on the ground that the levy of Rs. 150/- as licence fee was unjustified and illegal, and sought to quash the same. A learned judge of this Court, following the principle of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Kesavan Vaidyan's case (1970 KLT. 831) held that the fee was supported by quid pro quo and dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal. 2. Ever since the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the Liberty Cinema's case (1965 SC. 1107) it is well settled that the levy of fee can be justified only if the same is for "special benefit" to the payer of the licence fee. A number of Full Bench decisions of this Court which followed in the wake of that decision had explained the scope of "special benefit" in the light of this pronouncement and of the further decisions of the Supreme Court which had occasion to consider the matter. It is also well settled that the 'special benefit' to the payer of the licence-fee must be something is addition to what is being enjoyed by the general public. The case of Kesavan Vaidvan (1970 KLT. 831) referred to by the learned judge was heard by a Full Bench of this Court along with the Vaniamkulam Private Market's case (1971 KLT. 264). Judgment in both was delivered on the same day, although the one was reported earlier than the other. The levy of fee was sustained in the one case, and declared illegal in the other. 831) referred to by the learned judge was heard by a Full Bench of this Court along with the Vaniamkulam Private Market's case (1971 KLT. 264). Judgment in both was delivered on the same day, although the one was reported earlier than the other. The levy of fee was sustained in the one case, and declared illegal in the other. Both these cases recognised the principle that the special benefit may well be services rendered to the prayer of the licence-fee in greater measure and continuity than in the case of an ordinary tax-payer, the payer of the licence-fee in question, getting more than ordinary municipal service. 3. With these principles, let us examine whether it could be said that in this case that a quid pro quo has been established for the levy, and if so, whether there has been co-relation between the levy exacted and the services rendered or the special benefit conferred. Para.7 and 8 of the counter-affidavit of the Municipality which sets out its case in support of the levy are as follows: 7. The amount claimed as per Ext. P1 is not a tax but only a fee. I submit that without proper inspection and control of places like those of the petitioners, they are bound to become sources of great danger to public health. Such places have, therefore to be licensed under S.284 of the Kerala Municipalities Act. The allegation that there is no quid pro quoin the matter of the levy of licence fee is not true. It is submitted that the following facts will belie this allegation. All places which a re to be licensed under S.284 of the Kerala Municipalities Act are frequently inspected by the Municipal Staff. The Municipality is also taking mosquito control measures which trades like that carried on by the petitioners make absolutely necessary. Most of the time of one Health Inspector, one Sanitary Maistry and one Field Assistant is taken up with this work of control and supervision of places licenced under S.284. The Municipality is also employing in connection with this work sweepers, Antifiaria staff etc. Further, the time of one Lower Division Clerk is taken up entirely with the issue of licences. The Health Staff of the Municipality also gives advice and instructions to the occupants of the licensed places in the matter of preventing and abating nuisance. The Municipality is also employing in connection with this work sweepers, Antifiaria staff etc. Further, the time of one Lower Division Clerk is taken up entirely with the issue of licences. The Health Staff of the Municipality also gives advice and instructions to the occupants of the licensed places in the matter of preventing and abating nuisance. The petitioners and their employees are themselves benefited by the services rendered by the Municipality. 8. The aggregate income received by the Municipality by way of licence fee as well as the aggregate expenses incurred by it in connection with the control over the licensed places during the last three years is given below: Table:#1 In Para.12 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the services of the Health Department of the Municipality required by the ordinary tax payer in respect of his premises are negligible in quantity when compared with the services required by the petitioners which are greater in volume, continuity and degree. There is nothing to show that these extra hazards of the municipality or the extra services undertaken by it, have relation to the particular activity sought to be licenced, or relate to the class of persons like the petitioner from whom the licence fee is sought to be exacted. Some of them, listed in para 7 of the counter-affidavit, such for instance as inspection of the premises by the municipal staff, appear to us to be no more than the services done in discharge of the general statutory obligations of the municipality under S.99 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, and therefore, cannot form the foundation for the levy (See Nagar Mahapalika's case (AIR. 1968 SC. 1118). We think that the ground urged in Para.7 that extra services have got to be performed by the Municipal staff and extra hazards undertaken by it in regard to mosquito control measures over the copra drying yards such as the petitioner's, also falls under this description. As far as the employment and continuance of extra staff such as an Additional Health Inspector, or an Additional Inspector and Field Assistant are concerned, we are afraid that beyond the averments made in the counter-affidavit, there is nothing to satisfy us that the extra staff had to be detailed specially for, or in connection with, the trade or activity in respect of which the licence-fee in question is sought to be levied. In the unreported judgment in O. P. 2328 of 1966, in Vijayamohini Mills Ltd., Trivandrum v. The Commissioner, Corporation of Trivandrum, a Full Bench of this Court (Raman Nayar C. J., Madhavan Nair and Krishnamoorthy Iyer, JJ.) considered the validity of the licence fee levied under the similar section - S.299 - of the Municipal Corporations Act, read with the entry in Schedule IV, for using Machinery for any Industrial purpose. The services rendered by the Public Health staff by their visits, and advice on hygienic problems, scavenging operations in the area, and the spraying of disinfectants, were relied on to support the levy. It was ruled they had no relation to the activity that calls for the licence; and that the services are what the Corporation is bound to render in discharge of its general statutory obligations. The decision is apposite. 4. We are not satisfied that the Municipality has established that it was offering "special benefit" to the payer of the licence-fee. We also feel that such details as have been given in para 8 of the counter-affidavit which we have extracted earlier do not fulfil the requirement of co-relation between the levy exacted and the services rendered. li is true that arithmetical co-relation is not required; but in the absence of some details and particulars either in regard to the extra staff, if any, employed, or the extra services, if any, undertaken, and the extra expenses incurred, by the municipality on account of these copra drying premises, we are unable to hold that the co-relation required by law has been established. In the result, for want of sufficient materials, we allow this writ appeal. The result is that O. P. 1616 of 1969 will stand allowed, and Ext. P1 notice will be quashed. There will be no order as to costs. We make it clear that nothing said in this judgment will preclude the Municipality on any later occasion, with proper materials, from establishing that the fee in question is in fact supported by quid pro quo and that there is a proper co-relation between the levy and the services.