JUDGMENT V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J. 1.The meat vendors within the Changanacherry Municipality One, in O.P. 1529, and eleven in O.P. 1754 of 1973 , challenge the levy of Rs. 2 per cattle and Re. 1 per sheep, slaughtered in the Municipal Slaughterhouse, provided and maintained by the Municipality. The right of collecting this amount for the year, was farmed out by the Municipality at an auction, and bid by the 3rd respondent for a sum of Rs. 12,010.00. 2. The levy has been imposed under section 289 of the Kerala Municipalities Act which reads: "289. Slaughtering Provision of Municipal Slaughterhouses. (1) The municipal council shall provide a sufficient number of places for use as municipal slaughterhouses and may charge rents and fees for their use at such rates as it may think fit. (2) The council may (a) place the collection of such rents and fees under the management of such persons as may appear to it proper; (b) farm out such collection for any period not exceeding three years at a time and on such terms and conditions as it may think fit. The petitioners' counsel attacked the section as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it afforded no guide lines as to the rates at which the fees and rents are to be charged, or the extent and quantum of the levy. We do not think this argument is open in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Liberty Cinema's case, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1107. It was there ruled by the majority Judges that the levy had to be adjusted to, and measured by, the needs of the local body, on whom the power of taxation had been conferred, and that it cannot be said to be bad for not having fixed the ceiling or the upper limit of taxation. For, it was observed, a limit was only a limit, and not a guidance. Besides, having regard to the fact that the power has been conferred on a local body consisting of the elected representatives, we are not prepared to uphold the contention that the section itself is arbitrary. 3. For, it was observed, a limit was only a limit, and not a guidance. Besides, having regard to the fact that the power has been conferred on a local body consisting of the elected representatives, we are not prepared to uphold the contention that the section itself is arbitrary. 3. The next ground of attack was that, as a fee there was no quid pro quo for the levy, and no "special benefit" for the payers of the fee in question, nor any extra service undertaken or rendered by the Municipality for them. For the Municipality, the levy was sought to be saved both on the ground that it was 'rent', under section 289, and also on the ground that it was a 'fee' for the use of the slaughterhouse. We cannot accept the contention that the levy in question can be passed as rent. The collection is geared to the number of cattle or sheep slaughtered in the premises, irrespective of the duration or extent of the use of the premises. The levy thus seems to offend against the well-accepted notions of 'rent'. 4. It is well-settled since the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the Liberty Cinema's case, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1107 that the levy must be justified by the conferment of special benefit', on the payer of the licence fee. In the wake of the Supreme Court's pronouncement, several Full Bench decisions of this Court have followed. Kesavan Vaidyar's case, 1970 K.L.T. 831 and the Vaniamkulam Panchayat's case, 1971 K.L.T. 264 were two such decisions, heard together by the same Full Bench, in which judgments were delivered the same day, sustaining the levy as fee in the one case, and quashing it as not supported by quid pro quo, in the other. The recent decision of a Division Bench of ours in Jeevaraja v. Badagara Municipality, 1973 K.L.T. 845 followed the principles of these rulings and quashed the levy as unsustainable. The question in this case is: on which side of the line does the case fall? 5. Both Kesavan Vaidyar's case, 1970 K.L.T. 831 and the Vaniamkulam Panchayat case, 1971 K.L.T. 264 recognised that the "special benefit" may take the form of service rendered to the payers of the fee in greater measure and continuity than in the case of an ordinary tax payer, the payers of the fee requiring more than ordinary municipal service. 5. Both Kesavan Vaidyar's case, 1970 K.L.T. 831 and the Vaniamkulam Panchayat case, 1971 K.L.T. 264 recognised that the "special benefit" may take the form of service rendered to the payers of the fee in greater measure and continuity than in the case of an ordinary tax payer, the payers of the fee requiring more than ordinary municipal service. It is also recognised that the municipal authority would be justified in charging a fee which would save it from being out of pocket by reason of the duties imposed for supervision and control of the markets. But, at the same time, as ruled in Nagar Maha Palika, Varanassi v. Durgadas Bhatacharia, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1119, the services rendered by the Municipality or local body, should not be these in discharge of its statutory duties to the general public; for, such duties cannot be regarded as "special benefit�conferred upon the payers of the licence fee. It is, in the light of these principles, that the validity of the levy falls to be examined. 6. The slaughterhouse is provided by the Municipality. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Municipality, the cost of construction of the slaughterhouse has been estimated at Rs. 10,000, and the market value of the twenty cents of land on which it stands, at Rs. 15,000. The petitioner would allege that the cost of the slaughterhouse will be only Rs. 2,000. The Municipality has alleged that two full-time workers are posted in the slaughterhouse for cleaning the building and the premises and for removal of waste, and that the pay-scale of these workers is Rs. 65-1-75-2-85 plus the usual allowances. The total amount spent on them, has been worked out to Rs. 4,400 per annum. A full-time-Health Assistant in the scale of Rs. 90-190 plus the usual allowance is stated to be posted in the slaughterhouse for checking the animals brought for slaughter and for seeing whether they have been approved and stamped by the Local Veterinary Surgeon, and also for stamping carcasses before sale. He is also stated to be inspecting the slaughterhouse and the premises, and detecting unauthorised sales in the town which will be beneficial to the meat vendors. On this account the Council is stated to be incurring an expense of Rs. 3,420 per annum. In addition, it is claimed that there is the periodical supervision by one Health Inspector in the pay-scale of Rs. On this account the Council is stated to be incurring an expense of Rs. 3,420 per annum. In addition, it is claimed that there is the periodical supervision by one Health Inspector in the pay-scale of Rs. 140-290 plus the usual allowance. As he has got other duties also, the counter-affidavit would claim 50 per cent of the salary and allowances towards the expenses incurred and services rendered by him on account of the slaughterhouse, and put the figure at Rs. 2,760. The next item of expense stated to be incurred by the Municipality is Rs. 600 per annum paid to the Local Veterinary Surgeon conducting the ante-mortem and post-mortem examination of the animals. Again, two push carts fitted with nine litre capacity drums are stated to have been purchased for Rs. 700 and to be utilised for the collection of blood, dung and other waste from the slaughterhouse and for disposal of the same in the trenching ground daily. After cleaning and washing the slaughterhouse, the floors and other premises are disinfected with phenyle, bleaching powder and other disinfectant material, for all of which, the average cost has been estimated at Rs. 200 per year. The itemised expenditure has been given in the form of a tabular statement at page 7 of the counter-affidavit as follows: Approximate cost of building Rs. 10,000.00 Cost of land (approximate) Rs. 15,000.00 Total ___________ Rs.25,000.00 ___________ Salary of two workers Rs. 4,400.00 1. Health Assistant Rs. 3,420.00 ½ of salary of Health Inspector's pay and allowances Rs. 2,760.00 Veterinary Surgeon (Allowance) Rs. 600.00 Cost of two carts Rs. 700.00 Cost of disinfectants etc. Rs. 500.00 Total Rs. 12382.00 Bid amount Rs. 12,010.00 7. The petitioner, by C.M.P. 8579/1973 in O.P. 1529 of 1973 asked for production of the following documents: "1. The files relating to the purchase of the property for the slaughterhouse and the construction of the same, including the sale-deed and the contract agreement if the construction was made as per a contract. 2. The relevant rules or orders of the 2nd respondent-Municipality regarding the duties assigned to their servant who are mentioned in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter-affidavit and the remuneration paid to them. 3. The budget with details of the Municipality for the past 3 years. 4. The file relating to the sanction for the payment of Rs. 2. The relevant rules or orders of the 2nd respondent-Municipality regarding the duties assigned to their servant who are mentioned in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter-affidavit and the remuneration paid to them. 3. The budget with details of the Municipality for the past 3 years. 4. The file relating to the sanction for the payment of Rs. 600 to the Veterinary Surgeon." No counter was filed to this petition by the Municipality. The order on the petition on 2nd August 1973 was "Post along with the appeal" (O.P. ?). The writ petition was thereafter referred to a Division Bench, and after the matter was taken up for hearing, on 8th November 1973, we passed the following order: "Counsel for the 2nd Respondent agrees to produce the documents mentioned in the petition and/or file an affidavit explaining reasons for non-production by Monday the 12th". The Municipality then filed a counter-affidavit to the petition on the 12th, stating that the 20 cents of land on which the slaughterhouse is situated is part of an extent of 6 acres and 78 cents acquired by the Government as early as 1095 M.E., and that the building was constructed nearly 20 years ago, and that there is, in addition to the building, a platform and a compound wall on three sides, and a well, and that the records relating to the construction and the cost incurred for the same, are not traceable. Regarding the duties assigned to the Municipal servants, the counter-affidavit stated that no rules have been prescribed, nor any duty orders issued by the Government, and that the two full-time workers mentioned in paragraph 4, the full-time, Health Assistant referred to in paragraph 5, and the Health Inspector referred to in the same paragraph of the counter-affidavit, are all working under executive directions given by the Commissioner from time to time. Regarding the budgets of the Municipality, it was stated that the same will be made available for inspection and scrutiny at the time of hearing. This was done. Regarding the payment of Rs. 600 for the Veterinary Surgeon, a copy of the G.O. dated 1st March 1969, on the strength of which the payment was being made, was produced at the hearing. 8. We are not inclined to agree with the petitioners'' complaint that the Municipality has kept back the relevant records and evidence from the court. Regarding the payment of Rs. 600 for the Veterinary Surgeon, a copy of the G.O. dated 1st March 1969, on the strength of which the payment was being made, was produced at the hearing. 8. We are not inclined to agree with the petitioners'' complaint that the Municipality has kept back the relevant records and evidence from the court. Despite the records being in the custody of the Municipality, nothing prevented the petitioners from applying for an inspection of the records of the Municipality for gathering the necessary materials. This was not done. After the Municipality filed the counter-affidavit, an application for production of documents was filed, which was dealt with in the manner noticed above. We do not think that in the circumstances the petitioners' complaint that the Municipality has kept back the records, is well founded. 9. Before we proceed to evaluate the items of expenditure claimed to be incurred by the Municipality, on account of the extra services performed by it, we may notice the contention of the petitioners' counsel that the claims made by the Municipality are all in respect of services which are bound to be performed by it in discharge of its general statutory obligations to the members of the public, and therefore cannot form the foundation for a quid pro quo for the levy. The decision in Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi v. Durga Das Bhattacharya, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1119 is authority for that position. Our attention was called to section 3, clause (36) of the Act, which defines the term 'Scavenger' as meaning, inter alia, a person employed in cleaning slaughterhouses: Section 183 enjoins on every Municipal Council to make adequate arrangements for the regular sweeping and cleaning of the streets and removal of sweepings therefrom, the daily removal of the filth and the carcasses of animals from private premises, and the removal of rubbish from dust-bins and private premises. The section, we are afraid, does not touch the obligation to provide scavengers for keeping the slaughterhouse clean. Under section 313 it shall be the duty of the Commissioner to make provision for the constant and vigilant inspection of animals, carcasses, meat, poultry, game, flesh, fish, fruit and any other articles exposed or hawked about for sale or brought to any place for the purpose of sale or of preparation for sale. Under section 313 it shall be the duty of the Commissioner to make provision for the constant and vigilant inspection of animals, carcasses, meat, poultry, game, flesh, fish, fruit and any other articles exposed or hawked about for sale or brought to any place for the purpose of sale or of preparation for sale. We think the examination of the animals by a Veterinary Surgeon would be covered by this, and being an item of expenditure incurred in discharge of the Municipality's general statutory obligations, we would disallow this item of the Municipality's claim. Section 314 empowers the Commissioner to enter any slaughterhouse without notice and inspect the same and any utensil or vessel used for manufacturing, preparing or containing any such article. Section 316 gives the Commissioner the power to seize any diseased animal, noxious food, etc. 10. We shall now turn to the itemised expenses given in tabular form by the Municipality in its counter-affidavit. Section 289, while imposing a statutory obligation on the Municipality to provide slaughterhouses, also permits the levy of rents and fees for use of the same. Having regard to the nature of the trade or activity licensed in the slaughterhouse, we feel that it requires incessant attention on the part of the Municipality, attention in greater measure and continuity , and that those using the slaughterhouse thus required more than ordinary municipal service. We are therefore inclined to accept the Municipality's averment in paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit that the services of two full-time workers and one full-time Health Assistant were necessary for the supervision and control of the slaughterhouse. The expenditure on these accounts shown in the tabular statement would total to Rs. 7,820. We do not think the Municipality is entitled to reckon the, capital expenses, incurred for constructing the slaughter house and providing push carts. We are inclined to allow it to take into account only a reasonable return at 6 per cent per annum on these investments. For the sake of prudence, and to be fair to the petitioners, we would take the cost of construction of the slaughterhouse as only Rs. 2,000 as stated by them, and the cost of the two push carts at Rs. 700 as stated by the Municipality. The annual return on these at only a modest rate of 6 per cent would work out to Rs. 162. But we would disallow Rs. 2,000 as stated by them, and the cost of the two push carts at Rs. 700 as stated by the Municipality. The annual return on these at only a modest rate of 6 per cent would work out to Rs. 162. But we would disallow Rs. 2,760 claimed as half the salary of the Health Inspector, as, we think that it was pre-eminently part of his general statutory duty to inspect a place like the slaughterhouse maintained by the Municipality. We have already said that we are inclined to disallow the claim for Rs. 600 incurred for the services of a Veterinary Surgeon, in view of section 313 of the Act. The total expenses, thus reckoned, at the barest minimum, come to Rs. 7,982 (4400+3420+162). Co-related to the amount for which the collections were farmed out, namely Rs. 12,010 the expenses amount to much more than 60 per cent, and nearly to 2/3 of the bid amount. Going by the principle in the Delhi Cloth Mills case, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 344 (where the ratio stood at 60 per cent) we think that sufficient co-relation between the levy exacted and the 'special benefit' conferred has been established, and that the levy should be sustained as valid and proper. 11. The petitioners' counsel strenuously argued that the case falls within the line of the decisions indicated by theVaniamkulam Panchayats case, 1971 K.L.T. 264 and the Badagara Municipality's case, 1973 K.L.T. 845 and outside the principle in Kesavan Vaidyar's case, 1970 K.L.T. 831. The task of drawing the dividing line is not easy; and as these types of cases increasingly flood the courts, we trust that the attacking petitioners and the defending local bodies alike, would realise their due sense of responsibility in placing the best material to make good their respective contentions. In these writ petitions, we have done the best we can by sifting the materials and by applying the scissors to whatever we felt, it was necessary to excise. On the residue left, the Municipality has established a sufficient quid pro quo between the levy and the services. 12. We dismiss these writ petitions with no order as to costs.