JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, C. J. - On July 18, 1974, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of the powers under Sec. 22 of the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Nivantran Adhiniyam, 1964, made and promulgated rules called the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Niyamavali, 1974. Rule 23 of these Rules provided for administrative charges. The administrative charges were levied to meet the cost of establishment for supervision of control over molasses. They were to be levied at such rate or rates as may be notified from time to time. The administration charges were payable exclusive of the price payable to a sugar factory on the molasses released for sale by the Controller. 2. On July 27, 1974, the State Government issued a notification purporting to be in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 23 of the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Niyamavali, 1974. This notification levied administrative charges with effect from August 1, 1974, on the molasses released for sale by the Controller at the rate of Rs. 10/- per quintal of molasses having 'reducing sugar' of 40% or more, and a sum of Rs. 8/- per quintal of molasses having 'reducing sugar' of less than 40%. Para 2 of the notification stated that the above charges shall not be levied on molasses allotted for distillation and for purposes of industrial development in the State in accordance with the directions issued under Section 8 of the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964. 3. The petitioners in this group of writ petitions are the purchasers of molasses from sugar factories in accordance with the orders of release passed by the Controller. They are aggrieved at the levy of administrative charges. They challenge this levy on the following grounds:- (i) that Rule 23 and its notification was beyond the rule making power of the State Government: (ii) the levy is a tax and has been made in violation of Article 265 of the Constitution: (iii) that the levy violates Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as it singles out only free sale of molasses. The levy has not been made on molasses allotted to distilleries or for industrial development. The learned Advocate General submitted that Rule 23 purports to levy fee for services. It does not impose a tax. It does not violate Article 14 in any respect. 4. The levy has not been made on molasses allotted to distilleries or for industrial development. The learned Advocate General submitted that Rule 23 purports to levy fee for services. It does not impose a tax. It does not violate Article 14 in any respect. 4. In respect of the first point, the constitutional position is that Article 246 of the Constitution enumerates subject-matter of laws that can be enacted by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States. They are enumerated in the Union and the State Lists. For certain matters mentioned in the Concurrent List, Parliament as well as the Legislature of a State has power to make laws. The three lists are given in the Seventh Such to the Constitution. Entries 82 to 92-A deal with making of laws in respect of taxes and duties by Parliament. Entry 96 of the Union List is:- "Fees in respect of any of the matters in this List but not including fees taken in any Court." 4-A. Entry 97 of the Union List is a residuary entry providing :- "Any other matter not enumerated in List II or List III including any tax not mentioned in either of these Lists." 5. In respect of the State List, the position is that Entries 46 to 63 deal with various kinds of duties and taxes that can be levied by laws made by Legislature of any State. 5-A. Entry 66 reads:- "Fees in respect of any of the matters in this List but not including fees taken in any court." 5-B. Entry 47 of the Concurrent List provides:- "Fees in respect of any of the matters in this List, but not including fees taken in any court." 6. It will be seen that the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution read with Article 246 specifically authorises the Parliament and the State Legislatures to levy taxes on certain subject matters. It specifically authorises Parliament and the State Legislatures to make laws levying fees but only in respect of the matters enumerated in the List. 7. The State Legislatures are authorised to make laws levying fees in respect of matters enumerated in List II (State List). 8. It specifically authorises Parliament and the State Legislatures to make laws levying fees but only in respect of the matters enumerated in the List. 7. The State Legislatures are authorised to make laws levying fees in respect of matters enumerated in List II (State List). 8. The question whether the Legislature of a State can delegate the power of levying a tax or a fee to a subordinate authority is debatable, but assuming that such power can be delegated, the constitutional position in relation to the power of the subordinate authorities to impose taxes has been enunciated by the Supreme Court in Bimal Chandra Banerji v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1971 SC 517 , Hegde. J., speaking for the Court, held : "No tax can be imposed by any bye-law or rule or regulation unless the statute under which the subordinate legislation is made specially authorises the imposition even if it is assumed that the power to tax can be delegated to the executive. The basis of the statutory power conferred by the statute cannot be transgressed by the rule-making authority. A rule-making authority has no plenary power. It has to act within the limits of the power granted to it." 9. True, this position obtains with respect to the imposition of a tax. In our opinion, imposition of a fee will be on the same footing because like a tax the imposition of fee by law is also authorised by the Constitution. The Legislature of a State does not possess an inherent or a general power of imposing fees. Its legislative power to impose fees extends to imposition of fees only in respect of matters enumerated in the State List. Imposition of fees is governed by the same limitations as in the case of a tax. Even if the Legislature can delegate the power to impose fee to the Executive, it must specially authorise the latter to impose it. Rule-making authority has no plenary power. It has to act within the powers granted to it. So in a case where a fee is levied by the rule-making authority the powers to levy it must have been specially granted to it. 10. This takes us to the Act, namely, the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam. 1964. Rule-making authority has no plenary power. It has to act within the powers granted to it. So in a case where a fee is levied by the rule-making authority the powers to levy it must have been specially granted to it. 10. This takes us to the Act, namely, the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam. 1964. This Act was enacted to provide in public interest for the control of storage, gradation and price of molasses produced by sugar factories in Uttar Pradesh and the regulation of supply and distribution thereof. Chapter II deals with advisory and administrative machinery. Chap III describes preservation, distribution and prices. Chapter IV deals with offences and penalties, while Chapter V is headed as miscellaneous. 11. A careful reading of the first four chapters shows that there is no provision for the imposition of any fee in respect of any activity of molasses controlled by this Act. There is no provision for taking out of a licence either. 12. In exercise of the rule-making power conferred by Section 22, the State Government made the rules called the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Niyamavali, 1974, Rule 23 which is impugned in the present group of writ petitions runs as follows: "23. Administrative charges.- (1) The State Government may levy administrative charges exclusive of the price payable to a sugar factory on the molasses released for sale by the controller towards meeting the cost of establishment for supervision of control over molasses at such rate or rates as may be notified from time to time. (2) Every occupier of a sugar factory shall deposit the amount of administrative charges payable on molasses released for sale and produce the treasury challan as evidence of such payment to the excise officer in charge of the sugar factory before making actual delivery of the released molasses to the purchaser. 13. As already noticed, the State Government notified that with effect from August 1, 1974. administrative charges at the rate of Rs. 10/- and Rupees 8/- per quintal shall be payable on the sale of released molasses (in other words, on free sale). 14. It will be seen that the administrative charges are exclusive of the price payable to a sugar factory on the released quantity of molasses. administrative charges at the rate of Rs. 10/- and Rupees 8/- per quintal shall be payable on the sale of released molasses (in other words, on free sale). 14. It will be seen that the administrative charges are exclusive of the price payable to a sugar factory on the released quantity of molasses. Obviously, the purchaser has to pay this levy to the sugar factory which, in its turn, has to deposit the amount in the treasury before making the actual delivery of the released molasses. The argument of the learned Advocate General that the petitioners who are the purchasers have no locus standi to file a writ petition, has no substance. They have been made liable to pay the administrative charges to the sugar factory. They are hence persons aggrieved at the levy of administrative charges and so are entitled to maintain the writ petitions. 15. Section 22 of the Act which gives the rule-making power, provides: "22. Power to make rules.- (1) the State Govt. may, after previous publication in the Gazette, make rules to carry out the purpose of this Act. They are hence persons aggrieved at the levy of administrative charges and so are entitled to maintain the writ petitions. 15. Section 22 of the Act which gives the rule-making power, provides: "22. Power to make rules.- (1) the State Govt. may, after previous publication in the Gazette, make rules to carry out the purpose of this Act. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for- (a) the composition of the Advisory Committee, the manner in which its members shall be chosen the term of office of its members, the allowances if any, payable to them, the manner in which the Advisory Committee shall tender its advice and the procedure for the conduct of its business; (b) the procedure relating to the removal of members of the Advisory Committee; (c) conditions relating to the preservation and storage of molasses by sugar factories; (d) specification and test in respect of grading and sampling of molasses including verification of its quantity and quality; (e) manner of sale and supply of molasses; (f) the form and manner of appeal to the State Government and the procedure to be followed in its disposal; (g) the procedure for compounding of offences; (h) registers, records, accounts, instruments and reagents to be maintained by the occupiers of sugar factories; (i) the rent and the terms on which residential accommodation within the precincts of a sugar factory shall be provided to to the Excise Officer; (j) collection of information or statistics in respect of production, distribution and use of molasses; (k) disposal of molasses and articles forfeited under this Act; and (l) any other matter which is to be or may be prescribed. (3) All rules made under this Act shall, as soon as may be after they are made, be laid before each House of the State Legislature while it is in session, for a total period of not less than fourteen days extending in its one session or more than one successive session and shall, unless some later date is appointed, take effect from the date of their publication in the Gazette subject to such modifications or annulments as the two Houses of the Legislature may agree to make; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder." 16. Sub-section (1) of Section 22 confers on the State Government rule-making power to carry out the purposes of the Act. Neither the preamble nor any of the provisions of the Act contemplate the control or regulation of molasses to be under a licence or by the levy of any fee of any kind. The molasses are produced by sugar factories which are run under licenses issued under other laws on payment of the prescribed fee. That is why the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam of 1964 does not contemplate the grant of any license for the production of molasses or for storage or supply and distribution thereof. It cannot hence be said that the scheme of the Act contemplates the levy of fees for carrying out its purposes. A levy of fees hence cannot be referable to subsection (1) of Section 22. 17. The learned Advocate General then relied upon clauses (e), (j) and (1) of sub-section (2) of Section 22. Clause (e) refers to manner of sale and supply of molasses. Clause (j) deals with collection of information or statistics in respect of production, distribution and use of molasses. Clause (1) is a residuray clause which lays:- "any other matter which is to be or may be prescribed." 18. Clause (e) does not authorise the levy of fees. It deals with manner of sale and supply of molasses. It has to be kept in mind that the delegation of authority to levy fees has to be by a special provision in the Statute. Clause (e) does not even indirectly contemplate the imposition of fees. If levy of fees was in the mind of the Legislature, one should have found some mention in Section 7-A or 8 or 10 of the Act which provide for sale and supply of molasses and fixation of their price. Clause (j) deals with collection of information or statistics. It has nothing to do with imposition of fee. Moreover, the fee imposed by Rule 23 is for meeting the cost of establishment for supervision of control over molasses and not to meet the cost of collection of information or statistics. Clause (1) being residuary cannot be utilised for imposing fees or taxes. Thus, none of the clauses of subsection (2) of Section 22 authorises the levy of fee as has been done by R. 23. Clause (1) being residuary cannot be utilised for imposing fees or taxes. Thus, none of the clauses of subsection (2) of Section 22 authorises the levy of fee as has been done by R. 23. The levy by Rule 23 being beyond the rule-making power possessed by the State Government, the same is unsustainable. 19. In this view, it is not necessary to deal with other points raised in this group of writ petitions. 20. In the result, the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. Rule 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Niyamavali, 1974 is declared to be ultra vires the rule-making authority of the State Government. The notification dated July 27, 1974 issued by the State Government under Rule 23 is quashed. The petitioners will be entitled to costs.