G. DESAI, J. ( 1 ) THE 1st petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act and it is carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of Aluminium Metal, Aluminium oxide and other allied products. The registered office of the Company is at Calcutta and it has major works at belgaum, The 2nd petitioner is the shareholder of the 1st petitioner-Company and he is also the General Works Manager of the Belgaum Works of the Company. ( 2 ) THE 1st petitioner wanted to construct a second red mud pond as the first pond had been filled up. On 10-3- 1980, the 1st petitioner submitted an application under Section 326 of the karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') to the Corporation of the City of Belgaum (respondent- 1) for permission to construct the second red mud pond in the land situated in yamanapur and Kakati villages in Belgaum taluk as per the original of Annexure-A. Before making the said application, the 1st petitioner had obtained a Commencement certificate from the Planning authority of the City of Belgaum under section 14{2) of the Karnataka Country and Town Planning Act, 1961 and got the design and construction of the said pond approved by the Chief Engineer, minor Irrigation (North), Dharwad, as a natural nala running across the petitioner's land had to be slightly diverted outside the proposed pond. In reply to the said application, the 1st petitioner received an endorsement dated 14-3- 1980 stating that to consider their application, they have to pay a sum of Rs. 1,94,249-00 by way of supervision charges as per Annexure-B. The petitioners were not under any legal obligation to comply with the said demand as it was without authority of law and as section 326 of the Act did not require any such payment to be made. Petitioners, however, paid the said amount under protest. Thereafter, respondent-1 gave permission for the construction as per Annexure-D. Pursuant to it, the pond was constructed and is being used. The red mud pond provides only an enclosure for the inflow of the mud slurry coming through the underflow of the wash from the works. ( 3 ) IT appears that the sum of Rs. Thereafter, respondent-1 gave permission for the construction as per Annexure-D. Pursuant to it, the pond was constructed and is being used. The red mud pond provides only an enclosure for the inflow of the mud slurry coming through the underflow of the wash from the works. ( 3 ) IT appears that the sum of Rs. 1,94,249-00 demanded and collected by the 1st respondent as a condition for considering the petitioners' application for permission to construct the pond has been worked out by the 1st respondent at the rate of 5% of what is called development charges which itself is being calculated at the rate of 5% on the total pond area of 96 acres. The red mud pond is not work of improvement within the meaning of Section 466 of the Act and so the petitioners are not liable to pay anything to the 1st respondent as improvement expense under Section 467 of the Act. In respect of few other structures erected by the petitioners within its factory Campus, the 1st respondent similarly collected supervision charges and in all the 1st respondent has collected Rs. 2,03,915-27 ps. as supervision charges as detailed in the schedule to the petition. Hence, the petitioners have filed this petition for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from demanding or collecting any supervision charges as a condition for grant of permission under Section 326 of the Act and directing the 1st respondent to refund the sum of Rs. 2,03,915-27 ps. to them. ( 4 ) MR. S G. Sundara Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the word "tax" includes "fees" as observed in Muhammadbhai Khudabux Chhipa and another etc v State of Gujarat and another etc. ( AIR 1962 SC 1517 ). According to him no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law as per Article 265 of the Constitution and as there is no law authorising the collection of supervision charges, the collection of the same is illegal and Annexure-F which is the executive order made by the Government is of no avail to the 1st respondent in collecting the supervision charges. ( 5 ) MR. ( 5 ) MR. A. J. Gunjal, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent and learned Government advocate for the 2nd respondent tried to jusufy Annexure-F on the basis of Secrjon 18 of the Karnataka Town and country Planning Act, 1961 and Section 505 of the Act. ( 6 ) SO, the short question that arises for determination in this petition is whether the 1st respondent had authority to collect supervision charges from the petitioners for according permission to construct the second red mud pond and other structures According to Article 265 of the Constitution no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. The word "tax" as used in this article includes "fees" in view of the decision in Muhammadbhai Khudabux chhipa's case (vide Paragraph 29 ). It is also the view taken in Lucky Bharat ' Garage (Private) Ltd. v. Regional Transport authority, Raipur and others (A. I. R. 1965 Madhya Pradesh 232 ). Thus it is clear that no tax or fee can be levied by an instrument of subordinate legislation unless the statute specifically authorises its imposition in the plainest terms. ( 7 ) IN this case, reliance is placed on Annexure-F by the respondents to show that the 1st respondent had authority to collect the supervision charges. Annexure-F is an order issued by the government. No provision under which it has been issued is quoted in it. The government Advocate was unable to state under which provision, the said notification has been issued by the government. 7. Mr. Gunjal relied upon Section 18 of the Karnataka Town and Country planning Act, 1961. According to Sec. 18 of the said Act where permission for a change in the use or development of any land or building is granted under section 15 or Section 16 and such change or development is capable of yielding a better income to the owner, the Planning authority may levy a prescribed fee not exceeding one third of the estimated increase in the value of the land or building in the presctibed manner for permitting such change in use or development. In this case, it is not shown that the land after the construction of the red mud pond is capable of yielding a better income to the petitioners. In this case, it is not shown that the land after the construction of the red mud pond is capable of yielding a better income to the petitioners. Moreover, permission in this case has been granted by planning Authority under Section 15 (1) of the said Act, without charging any fees. That shows that the authority also did not think that it could collect the charges under Section 18 of the said Act. ( 8 ) THE Learned Government Advocate relied upon Section 55 (1) (a) and (b) of the said Act, 1961 which reads thus :"costs of a scheme- (1) The costs of a Town Planning scheme shall include- (a) all sums payable by the Planning authority under the provisions of this act, which are not specifically excluded from the costs of the scheme: (b) all sums spent or estimated to be spent by the Planning Authority in the making and in the execution of the scheme; "section 57 provides for contribution towards costs of scheme. In this case, we are not concerned with any scheme. So, annexure-F cannot be said to have been issued under the said provisions. ( 9 ) FOR granting permission under section 326 of the Act no fee is prescribed under the Act. Section 505 of the act provides that the Corporation should exercise its powers in conformity with the provisions of the Karnataka Town and country Planning Act, 1961 with regard to any matter relating to land use or development. Hence, it is clear that the said Section also does not authorise any levy of supervision charges. The Karnataka town and. Country Planning Act, 1961 does not contain any provision for levy of supervision charges. Therefore, annexure-F is of no avail to respondant-1 to justify the levy of supervision charges. Moreover, it is only an executive order and by executive order no fee can be levied. ( 10 ) MR. Gunjal, urged that the corporation Authorities are required to visit the spot for inspection to find out whether construction has been done in accordance with the sanctioned plan and therefore, levying of fee is justified. In the City Corporation of Calicut v. Thachambalath Sadasivan and others ( AIR 1985 SC 756 ). ( 10 ) MR. Gunjal, urged that the corporation Authorities are required to visit the spot for inspection to find out whether construction has been done in accordance with the sanctioned plan and therefore, levying of fee is justified. In the City Corporation of Calicut v. Thachambalath Sadasivan and others ( AIR 1985 SC 756 ). the Supreme Court was pleased to observe thus :"it is well settled by numerous recent decisions of the Supreme Court that the traditional concept in a fee of quid pro quo is undergoing a transformation and that though the fee must have relation to the services rendered, or the advantages conferred, such relation need not be direct, a mere casual relation may be enough. It is not necessary to establish that those who pay the fee must receive direct benefit of the services rendered for which the fee is being paid. If one who is liable to pay receives general benefit from the authority levying the fee the element of service required for collecting fee is satisfied. It is not necessary that the person liable to pay must receive some special benefit or advantage for payment of the fee. " ( 11 ) IN this case, as there is no provision for authorising the levy of supervision charges it cannot be levied. From the List-1, II and III in the Vllth Schedule of the Constitution it is clear that in respect of fees also legislation is required. As there is no law authorising the levy of the supervision charges, I hold that the collection of the same by the 1st respondent is illegal. ( 12 ) IN the result the petition is allowed and the rule is made absolute. Respondent-1 is directed to refund the sum of Rs. 2,03,915-27 ps collected by it from the petitioners within one month from today. ( 13 ) UNDER the circumstances, 1 direct the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .