JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, J. - Petitioners Nos. 2 to 9 are residents of different villages situated within the local limits of Zila Parishad, Varanasi, and are engaged in the business of running Flour Mills. Petitioner No. 1 is an association of persons, like petitioners Nos. 2 to 9. 2. Acting under S. 174(2)(k) of the U.P. District Boards Act, 1922, District Board, Varanasi enforced certain bye-laws for regulating, within its local limits, running of flour mill with effect from 18-6-1952. According to these bye-laws no person could establish or maintain a flour mill within the local limits of District Board, Varanasi except in accordance with the terms of the licence for the purpose, obtained by him after paying Rs. 20/- as licence fee. The bye-laws also provided that any breach thereof would be punishable with fine which would extend up to Rs. 250/- and if the breach be a continuing one with further fine of Rs. 10/- for every day after conviction during which the offender is proved to have persisted in committing offence. 3. With a view to provide for the establishment of Kshetra Samitis and Zila Parishads in the State of U.P. which were intended to undertake certain Governmental functions at Kshetra and district level etc. the State of U.P. enacted the U.P. Kshetra Samiti and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). S. 17 of the Act obliged the State Government to notify in the official Gazette the constitution of Zila Parishad for each district bearing the name of that district, and in due course the Kshetra samitis and Zila Parishad came to be constituted for the district of Varanasi. As a result of such constitution, the District Boards Act, as laid down in S. 274 of the Act, stood repealed in relation to the district of Varanasi. However, as laid down by S. 270 of the Act despite such repeal, the bye- laws for regulating flour mills, framed by the District Board, Varanasi continued to be effective and in force in the district of Varanasi. Accordingly, Zila Parishad, Varanasi. insisted that all persons installing flour mills within its local limits must take out licences after paying a sum of Rs. 20/- as licence fee. It also threatened to initiate criminal proceedings against all such persons who, according to it, were acting in contravention of the bye-laws. 4. Accordingly, Zila Parishad, Varanasi. insisted that all persons installing flour mills within its local limits must take out licences after paying a sum of Rs. 20/- as licence fee. It also threatened to initiate criminal proceedings against all such persons who, according to it, were acting in contravention of the bye-laws. 4. The petitioners filed the present writ petition and questioned the right of the Zila Parishad to realise any licence fee from them under the bye-laws for the purpose, framed by District Board, Varanasi in the year 1952. According to them, the District Board, Varanasi was not competent to frame the said bye-laws in exercise of its powers under S. 174(2)(k) of the District Boards Act 1922. In the alternative they contend that neither the District Board, Varanasi nor the Zila Parishad, Varanasi had been rendering any service to persons running their flour mills within their local limits. In as much as there is no nexus between the amount of licence fee realised by the Zila Parishad and the services rendered by it to persons running the flour mills, imposition of licence fee is unconstitutional and is liable to be set aside. 5. Section 174(1) of the District Board Act enabled the District Boards to frame bye laws consistent with the Act and the rules framed thereunder for the purpose of promoting or maintaining health, safety, convenience of the inhabitants of the District Administration, Relevant portion of sub-s. (2) of S. 174 of the Act runs thus :- "In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by sub- sec. (1), a board may, in the exercise of the said power, make any bye-laws described in the list below :- (a) .......................... (k) regulating slaughter - houses and offensive, dangerous or obnoxious trades, callings, or practices and prescribing fees to defray the expenditure incurred by a board for this purpose ...............". 6. Under Cl. (k) of S. 174(2) the board was enabled to frame bye-laws for regulating slaughter-houses, and offensive, dangerous or obnoxious trades, callings, or practices and to prescribe fees for defraying the expenses incurred by it in the course of such regulation. The sub-section makes it abundantly clear that the only purpose for prescribing fees under Cl. 6. Under Cl. (k) of S. 174(2) the board was enabled to frame bye-laws for regulating slaughter-houses, and offensive, dangerous or obnoxious trades, callings, or practices and to prescribe fees for defraying the expenses incurred by it in the course of such regulation. The sub-section makes it abundantly clear that the only purpose for prescribing fees under Cl. (k) of S. 174(2) is to collect money for defraying expenses incurred by the board in regulating slaughter-houses, and offensive, dangerous or obnoxious trades etc., carried on within its local limits. Under this clause no fee could be prescribed or realised for any other purpose. 7. In paragraph 8 of the writ petition, the petitioners asserted thus :- "That the respondent is charging Rs. 20/- per annum as licence fee from every flour mill owner within its local limits and there are more than 800 flour mills within its jurisdiction and most of the flour mills owners pay licence fee regularly to the respondent. It is also a fact that the respondent does not provide or give any facility or assistance to the flour mills owners paying licence fee, no officer of the respondent visits or inspects the flour mills established regarding their correct or defective mechanical establishment or of any nature. No special service is rendered on behalf of the respondent to the flour mill owners. The respondent has neither employed any additional staff for this purpose nor any additional expenditure has been incurred by the respondent in enforcing the impugned bye-laws. Imposing and demanding licence fee at the rate of Rs. 20/- per annum from every flour mill owner is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction." 8. It has, thus, very clearly been averred by the petitioners that the respondent is not incurring any expenditure in connection with or for the purpose of regulating flour mills in the district. Although the writ petition was admitted as far back as in the year 1977, respondent, Zila Parishad has not cared to put in appearance and to controvert the allegations made in paragraph 8 of the writ petition. The case of the petitioners that the licence fee which is being realised by the respondent, has no nexus with defraying of expenses incurred by the Zila Parishad in connection with enforcement of the said bye- laws, therefore, remains uncontroverted. The case of the petitioners that the licence fee which is being realised by the respondent, has no nexus with defraying of expenses incurred by the Zila Parishad in connection with enforcement of the said bye- laws, therefore, remains uncontroverted. A copy of bye-laws has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, its perusal also does not indicate that the Zila Parishad has to incur any additional expenses for enforcing any of the provisions of the said bye-laws. Thus, there is, no material before us to show that the licence fee of Rs. 20/- has any connection with defraying of expenses for purposes of the bye-laws. Apart from the provisions contained in S. 174(2)(k) of the Act, no other provision of the District Boards Act, enabling the District Board to frame bye-laws for charging licence fee in connection with running of flour mill has been brought to our notice. As in our opinion the bye-laws, to the extent they provided for `imposition' of licence fee, fall outside the ambit of S. 174(2)(k) of the District Boards Act, they are invalid from the very inception, it is not open to the Zila Parishad Varanasi to enforce the same by relying upon the provision of S. 270 of the Act. 9. We may, however, point out that S. 143 of the Kshetra Samiti and Zila Parishad Act enables the Zila Parishad or the Kshetra Samiti to charge fees to be fixed by bye-laws for any licence, sanction or permission which it is entitled or required to grant under the Act. It may well be that under this provision, the Zila Parishad is still competent to frame fresh bye- laws providing for levy of licence fee of the nature which has been impugned in this petition, (a point on which we are not expressing any concluded opinion), but then it has not been shown that it has provided for levy of any such fees. This, however, is matter which is entirely different from the question as to whether the Zila Parishad is under S. 270 of the Act, competent to realise a licence fee levied by the District Board in a case where such levy was invalid from the very inception. 10. This, however, is matter which is entirely different from the question as to whether the Zila Parishad is under S. 270 of the Act, competent to realise a licence fee levied by the District Board in a case where such levy was invalid from the very inception. 10. In as much as we have come to the conclusion that the provision contained in the bye-laws framed by the District Board Varanasi providing for payment of licence fee contained in Annexure-1 was not valid, the Zila Parishad is in our opinion not entitled to rely upon the provision of S. 270 of the Act and to enforce the same. 11. Next question that arises for consideration is about the relief which should in the circumstances, be allowed to the petitioners. The bye-laws where under fee for obtaining licence for running flour mills in the district of Varanasi, were framed as far back as in the year 1952. The validity of imposition of such licence fees has been questioned by the petitioner for the first time only by filing the present petition. Through out these thirty four years various flour mills located in the district have been paying modest licence fees of Rs. 20/- per annum to the District Board and Zila Parishad. The amount so realised by the District Board and Zila Parishad must have been utilised by them in connection with some activity, in the interest of the community. In these circumstances we do not consider that it would be appropriate to render respondent Zila Parishad liable for refund of the licence fee already collected by it from various flour mill owners. The reason for this is that where as the amount to which an individual flour mill owner would become entitled to, will not be substantial, the Zila Parishad if directed to refund the amount to all the flour mill owners, is likely to be saddled with the huge financial liability affecting its economic position adversely. However as according to us, the Zila Parishad is, under the bye-laws framed by the erstwhile District Board, not entitled to recover the licence fee for running of flour mills, we direct it not to realise any licence fee from the petitioners or other flour mills owners of Varanasi district on the basis of the bye-laws contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, hence forward. It is made clear that the order passed by us shall not stand in the way of the Zila Parishad in framing fresh bye-laws for the purpose in accordance with the provision contained in S. 143 and other provisions contained in Kshettra Samiti and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961. 12. Subject to the observations made above, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The Zila Parishad is directed not to realise any licence fee from the petitioners in pursuance of the bye-laws (Annexure-1), for granting them licences for running their flour mills within Varanasi district. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.