( 1 ) PETITIONER is the proprietrix of Canara Sales Agencies, Bangalore. She is holding a licence from the Bangalore Telephones, Posts and Telegraphs department, for displaying advertisement 'kiosks' on telegraph poles within the Corporation limits. The Corporation has levied ground rent of one rupee per mensem for each telegraph pole used for displaying advertisement. The validity of that levy is challenged in this writ petition under article 226. ( 2 ) BEFORE proceeding to consider the correctness of the contentions urged for the petitioner, it is necessary to state a few more facts leading to the petition. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has been displaying advertisement kiosks on telegraph poles which are within the Corporation limits. The Administrator of the Corporation by order dt. 28-3-1970 accorded approval for levying one rupee per mensem as ground rent for each telephone pole used for displaying advertisement. On 13-4-71 the Assistant. Revenue Officer, North Circle bangalore, called upon the petitioner to pay Rs. 4,097-00 as ground rent for the period, July 1968 to March 1971. He has also threatened the petitioner stating that he would recover the said amount as if it was an arrear of land revenue. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the Corporation, which is the respondent before me, no statement of objections has been filed in this petition. But, Sri S. V. Subramanyam, learned Counsel for the respondent, in support of the impugned levy, placed reliance on the advertisement Bye-laws framed under sub-sec. (31) of S. 467 of the Act, particularly, Bye-law 1 (a) and (b ). It reads thus :" 1. The Corporation may for the purpose of securing cleanliness, safety and order by notification: - (a) prohibit the erection, exhibition, fixation, retention or display of all or any class of advertisements in any street, public road, or public or private place, public or private building, wall, hoarding, structure, tree, lamp-posts, poles in or adjoining or visible from or abutting any public place or road, or public park or part thereof or in any place of public resort: and (b) regulate the erection, exhibition, fixation, retention, or display of advertisements in any manner in non-prohibited areas. " ( 5 ) HE further relied upon Bye-law 20 of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore Bye-laws ('the Bye-laws' ). The Bye-law 20, provides :" (A ). " ( 5 ) HE further relied upon Bye-law 20 of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore Bye-laws ('the Bye-laws' ). The Bye-law 20, provides :" (A ). Deposit of goods or materials temporarily on lands vested in the Municipal Corporation- 1. No person, who intends to build or take down any building or to alter or repair the outward part of any building in such portion or in such circumstances as that the work is likely to cause or may cause obstruction, danger or inconvenience, shall without the permission of the Commissioner, make a hole in any street, land or erect or deposit any timber, stone, brick, earth or other materials that has been or is intended to be, used for any building, on any street drain, or land vested in the Municipal Corporation. When such permission is granted to any person, he shall at his own expense, cause such materials or such hole to be sufficiently fenced or enclosed until the materials are removed or the hole is filled up or otherwise made secure to the satisfaction of the Corporation Engineer and shall cause the same to be sufficiently lighted during the night. 2. The amount chargeable for the deposit of goods or materials on any street, drain or other land vested in the Municipal Corporation, shall be calculated at the rate of one anna per month per square foot or the area occupied and shall be payable in advance, half this rate shall be charged if the period of occupation is less than a week. 3 and 4. Omitted as unnecessary. 5. The following is the scale of fees for obstruction and encroachments of different kinds- (a) for awnings-12 np. , per square foot per month; (b) for temporary archways across roads-Rupee one per day for each arch on each road; (c) the fees for obstruction shall be charged at the scale mentioned above and such charges shall be recoverable in the manner prescribed in the Act for the recovery or consolidated rates. " ( 6 ) BYE-LAW 20, in my opinion is wholly irrelevant to the facts of this case. The petitioner is not depositing any goods or materials temporarily on lands vested in the Corporation, nor she is putting up any obstruction across roads. She has been displaying advertisement 'kiosks' on telegraph poles above the reach of the pedestrains. " ( 6 ) BYE-LAW 20, in my opinion is wholly irrelevant to the facts of this case. The petitioner is not depositing any goods or materials temporarily on lands vested in the Corporation, nor she is putting up any obstruction across roads. She has been displaying advertisement 'kiosks' on telegraph poles above the reach of the pedestrains. Nothing is kerat on the Corporation land around telegraph poles. Therefore, Bye-law 20 has absolutely no application. ( 7 ) LET me now consider whether the Advertisement Bye-laws could support the impugned levy. Under Bye-law 1 (a) the Corporation may issue notification prohibiting the erection, exhibition, fixation, retention or display of all or any class of advertisements in any streets, public road or public or private place etc. , for the purpose of securing cleanliness and safety to the public. In the non-prohibited areas, the Corporation could regulate the manner of display of advertisements. Under Bye-law 1 (b), it may issue notification regulating the erection, exhibition, fixation, retention or display of advertisements, in any manner it likes. ( 8 ) THE contention for the Corporation that the impugned levy was intended to regulate the display of advertisements falling under Bye-law 1 (b) of the Advertisement Bye-laws, has no substance. The said Bye-law does not authorise the Corporation to levy any fee much less the impugned ground rent. The power to levy tax or fee must be expressly conferred on the Corporation either by the Act or by the Bye-laws. Under the guise of regulating the erection exhibition, fixation, retention or display of advertisement the Corporation cannot levy any ground rent. Apart from that, the impugned levy was made not under the Advertisement Bye-laws, but, under Bye-law 20 of the Bye-laws, which I have already held that it is wholly irrelevant to the facts of the present case. ( 9 ) IT must, therefore, be held that the levy of ground rent was illegal and without the authority of law. ( 10 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed, quashing the impugned demand under Exhibit B and C. ( 11 ) THE petitioner is entitled to her costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 50. --- *** --- .