JUDGMENT A.N. Verma, J. - Though this petition was originally filed by several petitioners but on an objection taken by the respondents the petition was confined only to the claim of Shyam Behari Mathur, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the imposition of licence fee by the Zila Parishad, Mainpuri on the petitioner who is a private owner of cattle fair and market held within the local limits of Zila Parishad, Mainpuri. The licence fee is being realised from the petitioner for running cattle fair and market within the said local limits. 3. In the petition the main ground urged is that the Zila Parishad is not rendering any service to the petitioner who is making his own arrangement for private market and fair held by him over his own land and consequently the Zila Parishad is not entitled to levy such licence-fee. 4. In the counter-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Zila Parishad, assertions of the petitioner have been denied. It is asserted that the Zila Parishad is realising licence-fee for rendering various services to the owners in the running of cattle fairs and markets. Thus it is giving them facilities in the shape of dispensaries for providing medical facilities to the animals which are brought for sale in the fairs and markets. Beside, the Zila Parishad claims to have constructed one kilometer long metalled road to connect village Malginpur Newada where the petitioner, Shyam Behari Mathur is running his cattle fair and market at the cost of Rs. 2,24,795.30. In addition the Zila Parishad has also undertaken drinking water project costing about Rs. 17,24,000/- for which it has already advanced the money to the Jal Nigam which is constructing tube- wells and overhead tanks etc. at various places, the benefit of which eventually goes to, these markets and fairs. It is further stated that expenditure for maintaining the aforesaid dispensaries by the Zila Parishad runs into thousands of rupees per month whereas income of the Zila Parishad during the last three years was only Rs. 3275/-. The break-up of this income has also been indicated in para 3 of the supplementary affidavit. 5. It is further stated that expenditure for maintaining the aforesaid dispensaries by the Zila Parishad runs into thousands of rupees per month whereas income of the Zila Parishad during the last three years was only Rs. 3275/-. The break-up of this income has also been indicated in para 3 of the supplementary affidavit. 5. Sri M. B. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the respondent Zila Parishad was already running the aforesaid dispensaries and the road, referred to above, was also in existence from before and consequently any amount which may have gone into construction of that road or establishment of the dispensaries could not justify imposition of the licence fee. 6. We find no merit in the above contention. In the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Sreenivasa General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1983 SC 1246 , their Lordships reviewed the entire law on the subject and observed that the traditional view that there must be actual quid pro quo for a fee, has undergone a sea of change subsequent to decision in Kewal Krishan v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1008 . It was further observed that correlation ship between the levy and the services rendered/expected is one of general character and not of mathematical exactitude and all that is necessary is that there should be a reasonable relationship between the levy of the fee and the services rendered. In the end, it was observed that tax and fee both are compulsory exactions of money by public authorities. 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid pronouncement, it appears that in the present case on the facts brought on the record by the Zilla Parishad it is apparent that imposition of the licence fee is fully justified. From the narration of facts referred to above, it is clear that having regard to volume of income derived by the Zila Parished from licence fee and the various items of expenditure incurred by it, it cannot be said that there is no reasonable relationship between each other. In our view, the impugned fee fully conforms to the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1983 SC 1246 . 8. In our view, the impugned fee fully conforms to the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1983 SC 1246 . 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that any expenditure over the dispensaries or the road which were already existing could not be taken into account in determining the validity of the fee. 9. We are unable to agree. Even if we assume that the dispensaries and the road were in existence from before the imposition of the fee in question, would not affect the validity of the fee, for the Zila Parishad has to incur expenditure over the maintenance of the same. The services: rendered through the said dispensaries and benefit accruing from the road are available also to those who are coming to the market in question for purchase and sale of cattle. The petitioners are direct beneficiaries, therefore. The same can hence be taken into account while considering the validity of the imposition of licence fee. 10. We also do not agree that any amount which may have been spent by the Zila Parishad for undertaking some project in future must be ignored in judging the legality of the imposition of the fee in question. The Supreme Court has said in the aforesaid decision that there should be a reasonable relationship between the levy of the fee not only from the services actually rendered but also those which are to be rendered in determining the validity of the imposition of a fee. 11. We therefore, reject the contention I that the license fees are not being validly realised by the Zila Parishad. 12. The next contention of the petitioner is that in any case in so far as registration fee in regard to private owners of markets and fairs which are not established, maintained or controlled by the Zila Parishad is concerned the same cannot be levied as according to the definition the registration is required only in the case of markets and fairs established, maintained or controlled by the Zila Parishad, as defined in the bye-laws. 13. This contention of the petitioner appears to be well founded. Under bye-law. No. 9 registration is required only in the case of trade of purchase and sale of cattle in a market established, maintained or controlled by the Zilla Parishad and not from private markets and fairs. 13. This contention of the petitioner appears to be well founded. Under bye-law. No. 9 registration is required only in the case of trade of purchase and sale of cattle in a market established, maintained or controlled by the Zilla Parishad and not from private markets and fairs. This is apparent from a combined reading of bye-law of clauses 2 and 9 of the definition clauses mentioned in the bye-laws. 14. In the result, this petition in so far as Shyam Behari Mathur is concerned succeeds in part to the limited extent that the clause relating to registration fee would apply to him so long as he is not doing business in any cattle market established, managed or controlled by the Zila Parishad and so long as he runs his private cattle market and fair over the land owned by him. Rest of the reliefs claimed in the petition are refused. There will be no order as to costs.