JUDGMENT R.R. Rastogi, J. - By these petitions under Article 216 of the Constitution the petitioners challenge the levy the licence fee at the rate Rs. 1,000 per annum for running a poultry farm. 2. The petitioners have been running poultry farms within the municipal limits of Kashipur District Nainital. The Nagar Palika Kashipur by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 298 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 hereafter the Act passed a regulation known as Poultry Farm Regulation. This Regulation was published in the official gazette through' Notification No. 1236/23-5 dated August 30, 1975. By means of this Regulation bye-laws have been made under cause I (h) and J (a) of subsection of Section 298 of the Act. Bye-law 2, inter alia, defines a poultry farm as a place where 25 or more than 25 birds a e kept for ca1 having on the business, in the same. Bye-law 8 provides that a licence fee of Rs. 1,000 shall have to be paid for each licence each year. The Nagar Palika Kashipur served a notice on the petitioners on 21-1-1976 calling upon them to obtain a licence for the poultry farms for 1970-76 within fifteen days from the date of the receipt of the notice. The petitioner filed an objection to that notice on 11 2-76 in which case taken was that the amount of licence fee demanded was excessive and arbitrary. It appears that no action was taken on that objection and the petitioner, then, filed the present writ petitions challenging the levy of the licence fee. 3. The main ground of attack is that the imposition of licence fee at Rs. 1,000 per annum is a restraint on the trade and business, inasmuch as the amount is highly excessive and apart from that there is no element of guide proquo involved in the levely of this fee. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which a vague averment has been made in paras 19 and 23 that the licence fee charged in quite justified invoking to the services rendered and the expenses incurred by the Municipal Board for proper running and maintenance of the poultry farms. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which a vague averment has been made in paras 19 and 23 that the licence fee charged in quite justified invoking to the services rendered and the expenses incurred by the Municipal Board for proper running and maintenance of the poultry farms. In the supplementary counter-affidavit the facilities proposed to be given are elobrated and that the Nagar palika will have to engage two extra temporary Safai Kasiosa charges for cleaning and disposal of waste material from inside and outside the poultry farms it will nave to buy two trollies for the removal of the garbage and to arrange its disposal it will have to supply extra place and street lights and construct new approach road and also repair the existing roads. It will also have to appoint extra veterinary staff and to lay water pipe for the regular supply of water to the Farms. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed in which these averments have been controverted. 5. It would be seen that the power of the Nagar Palika to frame bye-laws under Section 298 is not in dispute nor any dispute has been raise in regard to the provisions under which the impugned bye-laws have been framed, i.e. I (h) and j (a) of sub-section (2) of sub-section 298. The controverary is only in regard to the quantum of the licence being arbitrary and illegal having no element whatever of quid proquo. 6. As regards the nature of fee, the question stands settled by the various decisions of the Supreme Court. A fee is generally defined to be a charge for special service rendered to individuals by the Government or same other agency, like a local authority or statutory Corporation. The amount of fee is supposed to be based on the expenses incurred by the state in rendering the service. In the State of Maharashtra v. The Salvation Army, Western India Territory, AIR 1975 SC 846 Mathew, J. Speaking for the court observed: - "As a fee is regards as a sort of return or consideration for service rendered, it is necessary, that the levy of fees should be corelated to the expenses incurred by the agency in rendering the services. 7. 7. Again, the essential ingredients for satisfying the test for a valid levy of a fee were laid down by the Supreme Court in Civil appeal No. 1083 of 1977, Dewel Krishna Puri and another v. State of Punjab ana another, decided on May 4, 1979. The relevant sections have been extracted by a Bench of this court in Oriental Glass Works and Nine others v. Municipal Board Firozabad and another, 1980 UPLBEC 369. The existence of the cement of quid proquo has been regarded as one of the essential ingredients. The services rendered to the licences must be in relation to the purpose of imposition and the amount realised should be spent for such purposes and should not from part of the general revenue. It is correct that the element of quid proquie may not be established with arithmatical exactitude. It is however, to be established that the authorities who charge the fees, spent the amount for rendering service to those on whom falls the burden of the fee. 8. It has also been made clear in Nagar Mahapalika Varanasi v. Durga Das Bhattacharya, AIR 1961 SC 1119 at p 1125 and Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd., AIR 1975 SC 2037 that performance of statutory duties will not amount to rendition of service so as to justify levy of fee. In the case of the Government of Andhra Pradesh (supra) it has been observed : - "Laying of roads and drainage or supply of street lights or statutory functions of public authorities do not open to rendition of such services as are required to justify the levy of fee." 9. The Nagar Palika, Kashipur has, therefore to justify the levy of the impugned fee. As noted above in the counter-affidavit only some general and vague avermants of services rendered have been made. In the supplementary counter-affidavit an attempt has been made to elaborate the service proposed to be rendered. These services, however, fall within the statutory duties of the Nagar Palika, i.e. to provide for cleaning and disposal of waste material, to provide street lights and lay water pipe line as also to appoint veterinary staff. The same is the case with regard to laying of new roads or repair of the existing roads. In our opinion the Nagar Palika. The same is the case with regard to laying of new roads or repair of the existing roads. In our opinion the Nagar Palika. Kashipur has failed to establish that it renders or proposed to reader any service to the licensees under the impugned bye-laws. The imposition of licence fee, therefore, at Rs. 1,000 is arbitrary, unjust and invalid in law. 10. Accordingly we allow these petitions and strike down bye-law 8 of the impugned Notification 1236-23-5, dated August 30, 1975 parties shall bear their own costs.