JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - A cattle market in the district of Etawah, within village Vedpura Pargana has given rise to consequential issues raised in the present writ petition. On the land of tenure holder Dewari Lal and others a large cattle market is held twice. On Mondaysand Fridays, between the period of Jeth Dashehra to Diwali and thereafter for fifteen days from Basant Panchmi. The petitioner places on record that cattle is brought to this market and fair, from as far off places as the State of West Uttar Pradesh and it is sold to purchasers from West Uttar Pradesh and those from States, east of Uttar Pradesh. The cattle market is carried on under a licence issued by the Zila Parishad Etawah. The licence' for holding a cattle market is issued under the U. P. Kshetra Samitisand Zila Parishads Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the bye laws framed and continued under the Act, aforesaid. 2. Inevitably such a large cattle market gives rise to other modes of business also. These are consequential to the cattle market. As the cattle will come into the fair for being put up on sale and will be purchased at the fair, to bring the cattle in or take it out of the fair, stands by the agency of transporters (sic). In the days gone by cattle were virtually brought to such fairs by foot and after the purchase, were walked home to the purchasers' destination ...As the times changed, so does the style of the fair. The cattle are brought into this village fair in trucks and after purchase driven away virtually by the very truck which brought them in. This, side by side with the cattle fair, as a consequence of it, springs a transport business. The transport agencies virtually participate in the fair by receiving consideration bringing in cattle or taking it out. This implies that the cattle which is brought to participate in the fair or taken out from the fair by the purchaser, uses a transport agency. Such transport agencies make a business out of the cattle fair as they ply for hire or reward. Without the cattle fair such transport agencies .would not ply in the vicinity of the fair for hire or reward. 3. Such transport agencies make a business out of the cattle fair as they ply for hire or reward. Without the cattle fair such transport agencies .would not ply in the vicinity of the fair for hire or reward. 3. The issue in the present writ petition is that the local body known as Zila Parishad, Etawah, instituted under the Act, aforesaid (hereinafter referred to as the Zila Parishad) has imposed Tahbazari on such transport agencies who bring cattle into or take it out of. the cattle fair. As has been narrated above the act of unloading or loading the cattle has been brought into the fair or taken out of the fair, involves a levy of Tahbazari by the Zila Parishad. The petitioner, it is not denied in the writ petition, is one such person who is conducting transport business as a consequence of the cattle fair at village Vedpura, Paragana and District Etawah. It is contended that he is not liable to pay Tahbazari' as a consequence of his activity for transporting cattle into, or out of, the fair. The petitioner contends that this is beyond the powers of the Zila Parishad to levy this Tahbazari. He further contends that the cattle fair is held on the land of one Diwarilal and others under a licence and that beyond the licence fee for holding the fair, in reference to this fair, the Zila Parishad cannot impose any other charges. 4. What is not in dispute is the fact that the petitioner, Ali Hasan, is in transport business around village Vedpura bazar, Pargana and District Etawah. Ali Hasan categorically mentions in his petition that he has been carrying on his transport business for the last two decades. He further mentions that as a consequence of the cattle fair, which is organised in and around the aforesaid village, there exists a lucrative business for transporting cattle into and out of the fair, for monetary consideration. Indeed in the process of bringing the cattle into the fair on behalf of the sellers or taking it out at the behest of the purchasers the petitioner makes a business out of it. 5. Indeed in the process of bringing the cattle into the fair on behalf of the sellers or taking it out at the behest of the purchasers the petitioner makes a business out of it. 5. The Zila Parishad got wiser and found that while it was granting a licence to hold a cattle fair to such persons as they were entitled to hold it, under the law, another commercial activity incidental to the cattle fair was also taking place. Modern means of transport, which vehicles having a larger capacity to carry, brought a class of professional transporters to dump cattle for sale and to lift it out of the cattle fair at the behest of the buyer. This activity of transporting the cattle was for monetary consideration. It was an activity consequential and incidental to the cattle fair. On all such transporters who conduct an activity, which was consequential to the cattle fair, that is, those who extract transport charges as hire or reward, the Zila Parishad sought a Tahbazari. 6. The petitioner contends that this cannot be done. The petitioner contends that this charge in the name of Tahbazari can only be made provided he utilises any public road or street or from those who sell or hawk their merchandise from such places. A transport business, is not an activity upon which he can be called upon to pay Tahbazari impost. 7. But, the facts as emerge from the pleadings of writ petition, that the licence, Dewari Lal, was given a licence to hold a cattle market. He made capital out of it apart from selling cattle. This Diwari Lal encouraged a transport business having a direct nexus with his cattle fair. He shared the profits of the transport business. On the transport charges paid by the seller or the buyer when the cattle was brought in and out of the fair the profits were shared between Diwari Lal the licence who held the fair and the petitioner who transported cattle. 8. The Zila Parishad feeling that there was a business consequential and incidental to the cattle market levelled a charge on the transport agency, being a small percentage of the charges received by it for hire or reward in transporting cattle. 8. The Zila Parishad feeling that there was a business consequential and incidental to the cattle market levelled a charge on the transport agency, being a small percentage of the charges received by it for hire or reward in transporting cattle. This it realises as Tahbazari, and only in reference to the context, when the transportation of cattle is consequential and incidental to the cattle fair, and the transportation is undertaken for hire or reward. For this purpose the Zila Parishad has a barrier outpost conveniently placed so that egress and ingress of a transport agency carrying cattle can be monitored. 9. The petitioner contends that his transport activity is not strictly carried on the public road or streets of the Zila Parishad. Thus the petitioner, contends that there is no question of paying any impost to the Zila Parishad in the nature of Tahbazari. 10. The Zila Parishad on the other hand contends that any revenue it raises out of granting licence for holding cattle fair it has to spend on certain arrangements, for the fair. The Zila Parishad contends that the very fact that a cattle market is held, it is implied that there have to be arrangements for keeping public law and order, providing water for its multifarious use, sanitation and night light arrangements in and around the area where the cattle market is held. The finances are thus generated from the impost on the transport charges received by the transport agency for hire and reward, an activity consequential and incidental to the cattle fair. 11. The petitioner apparently has limited concept of the expression Tahbazari' and in attempting to raise a plea that as transporter he is not liable to pay this imposition by the Zila Parishad, he asserts tahbazari is due only from person who hawks off side walks and off public roads and streets. The expression tahbazari is often more misunderstood than understood. Tahbazari is an impost fee for permission to do certain acts, the acts in question being sale of goods or services. In certain places the impost is assessed according to the circumstances of the sale of goods or services. It is a charge for a privilege to sell goods and services within certain limits of a local body. For such imposition, there are no contracts, no agreements and no rents. In certain places the impost is assessed according to the circumstances of the sale of goods or services. It is a charge for a privilege to sell goods and services within certain limits of a local body. For such imposition, there are no contracts, no agreements and no rents. A local body has the authority to refuse to grant permission to a person to carry on such business and if it does grant such permission then a charge is to be paid as consideration for the privilege of conducting such business. The position of the petitioner is not different from an itinerant vendor. After all an itinerant vendor is one who travels from place to place especially on circuit. The expression would apply equally in the present case to an itinerant transporter. A vendor sells his wares, the transporter offers his services for hire or reward or for monetary consideration. The petitioner has made a business in transporting cattle contingent upon holding of the cattle fair. His trucks come tearing in and go tearing out off the public roads out of the Zila Parishad. They park off the road and but for the public roads the petitioner's trucks would not have access to the cattle fair and this may not be the end of the use to which his vehicles have when they roll off the public roads and lands of the Zila Parishad. 12. The charge which the Zila Parishad intakes is proportionate to the fare the petitioner extracts from persons who bring cattle into the market for sale or take it out of the market after it has been sold. The charges are proportionate to what the petitioner receives in consideration for the transport business which he carries on as a consequence of or incidental to the cattle fair. This impost which the petitioner pays is (for) a privilege to vend. The petitioner sells his services of transporting merchandise into the cattle fair or taking it out of it. The charge of the Zila Parishad is commensurate with what the petitioner charges from his customers. One thing is certain that but for the cattle fair the petitioner would not be operating his business. In fact this is his case. The petitioner sells his services of transporting merchandise into the cattle fair or taking it out of it. The charge of the Zila Parishad is commensurate with what the petitioner charges from his customers. One thing is certain that but for the cattle fair the petitioner would not be operating his business. In fact this is his case. The petitioner's transport business, in reference to the contest, is incidental and consequential to the cattle fairs which are permitted by the Zila Parishad, and the impost made by the Zila Parishad as tahbazari, is neither arbitrary nor illegal. 13. The petitioner, is also interested as the agent of the cattle fair holder, to realise a commission on the consideration or charges realised on the transportation of cattle, after sale at the cattle fair. The cattle fair holders held on auction inviting bids for the realisation of the commission or surcharge on the transport charges for hauling cattle into or out of the fair. These are matters off the record, though not disclosed in the writ petition, but in the counter-affidavit of the Zila Parishad, a reference to this may be had from Annexure-3. This is an advertisement inserted by the cattle fair holders inviting open bids to realise commission or surcharge on the charges realised by transporters for hauling cattle. The name of Diwari Lal, the principal of the petitioner, in this arrangement is mentioned. 14. The licence was granted by the Zila Parishad to hold a cattle market, but not to realise a commission from transport agencies on the charges realised for hire of trucks or vehicles in transporting cattle sold or purchased at the fair. 15. It cannot be disputed, that to facilitate entry into the cattle fair, public roads and public land, off such roads is used. For, the regulation of traffic, and (for) the preservation and protection of public roads was entrusted to the District Boards, as an obligation, by the State Government. It was so, particularly, in the case of District Board, Etawah (as it was then known) by a State Government Circular No. MO-1954, which is Annexure 5 to the counter affidavit. This State Government order recites : "3. Government appreciates that the District Boards are entitled to enjoy all privileges and to get a share of income from tahbazari etc. It was so, particularly, in the case of District Board, Etawah (as it was then known) by a State Government Circular No. MO-1954, which is Annexure 5 to the counter affidavit. This State Government order recites : "3. Government appreciates that the District Boards are entitled to enjoy all privileges and to get a share of income from tahbazari etc. as enjoined in para 3 of the Local Self Government Department G.O. No. D-216/ix-9B/1940 dated Feb. 12, 1942." The obligation of the Zila Parishad to maintain and protect public road and lands is not denied, by this State Government order. All that is said in reference to this in the rejoinder affidavit, in para 32, is that this Government order has become obsolete. 16. Estoppel bars the petitioner, either as an agent of Diwari Lal, the holder of the cattle fair, to challenge the vires of the impost of tahbazari on the hire charges realised by transport agencies in transporting cattle, into or out of the fair. The petitioner, as an agent, and his principal Diwari Lal, and like persons, attempted to realise the same charges as a commission and had made arrangements to collect such a commission from transport agencies through an independent contractor. Should the petitioner realise this charge as a commission or otherwise, it would be without sanction of law, and amount to extortion. What irks the petitioner and his principal is that the Zila Parishad can realise it in the nature of tahbazari, under the law. The question then is, not that the charge as realised is bad, but who should realise it? It is inconceivable that the petitioner can extract the same charge as commission and suggests, that it is regular, and when the Zila Parishad realises it, as tahbazari, then it would be : illegal. 17. The bye-laws of the Zila Parishad, Etawah, as amended from time to time, and originally framed on 6th Oct., 1948, under, the United Provinces District Boards Act, 1922 (U. P. Act X of 1922) vide S. 174(2)(b) read with S. 105, and further read with S. 142(1) of the U. P. Kshetra Samiti and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961, read with amended bye-laws and framed under S. 239(2)(d), enable the Parishad to charge fee, in effect, for use and occupation of any public road or public place. The bye-laws do permit the Zila Parishad to realise a fee from a vehicle used strictly for hire or reward when it uses public roads, or places adjacent or close to the roads. As this Court has observed earlier, the transport agencies sell services for hire and reward, which is consequential and incidental to the cattle fair conducted under licence from the Zila Parishad. The sale of services, as aforesaid, if consequential and incidental will attract the impost of tahbazari. Should a cattle dealer, bring in or take his animals at the cattle fair on his transport vehicles, the element of hire or reward being absent, then such tahbazari will not be realised from such a cattle dealer. 18. The cases cited on behalf of the petitioner are thus not relevant in the facts and circumstances on the issues raised in the present writ petition. 19. The case re: Sada Nand v. Zila Parishad, Varanasi, 1983 UPLBEC 176, was virtually decided on a concession and admitted facts. A shop keeper, not utilising a public road or adjoining pathway, was held not liable to pay tahbazari. 20. The case in re: Town Area Committee, Bhogaon v. Kanpur Delhi Goods Carrier (P) Ltd., 1974 All LJ 231, does not aid the case of the petitioner either. The Court held in this case that "in the absence of the legislature having defined the word tahbazari it would be the dictionary meaning which must be assigned to that word." The Court then examined the meaning of the expression "Tahbazari in paragraph 8 of the judgment, relying upon the case of Sadanand (supra). On Tahbazari, the Court observed: "Tahbazari" must be directly related to the occupation of some ground in a market or public place for purpose of carrying on some trade or practising some calling and partakes of the nature of ground rent." In this case in re: Town Area Committee, Bhogaon (supra) the attempt of the local body to levy tax on vehicles which would neither set down or pick up any passengers nor load or unload any goods within the Town Area Committee was held to be bad. While repelling the decision of the Town Area Committee the Court observed "the tax thus has no relation to the use of the vehicles of any market or public place for carrying on any trade or the sale of services. While repelling the decision of the Town Area Committee the Court observed "the tax thus has no relation to the use of the vehicles of any market or public place for carrying on any trade or the sale of services. We have consequently no hesitation in holding that tax, cannot be supported as Tahbazari leviable by the Town Areas under S. 14(2)(b) of the Act." But the facts in the present writ petition are otherwise. The vehicles are loading and unloading cattle within the precincts of the Zila Parishad and have direct nexus with the cattle fair which is being carried on under a licence issued by the Zila Parishad. Transport agencies are selling their services for hire and reward consequential and incidental to the cattle fair; public roads and grounds are being utilised. Tahbazari on the rale of services for hire and reward, in the circumstances, is neither illegal nor unreasonable. 21. The petitioner cited the decision of the Supreme Court in re: City Corporation of Calicut v. T. Sadasivan, AIR 1985 SC 756 Apparently this decision cited by mistake, the Supreme Court reiterated the settled view that in reference to a fee realised for the benefit provided or a privilege conferred it was not necessary nor expedient to weigh too meticulously the cost of services rendered, etc. against the amount of fees collected so as to evenly balance the two. The passage noticed in this decision of the Supreme Court of an earlier decision in re; Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Mohammad Yasin, AIR 1983 SC 617 is being reproduced below; - "What do we learn from these precedents? We learn that there is no generic difference between a tax and a fee, though broadlya tax is compulsory exaction as part of a common burden, without promise of any special advantages to classes of tax payers whereas a fee is a payment for services rendered, benefit provided or privilege conferred. Compulsion is not the hallmark of the distinction between a tax and a fee. That the money collected does not go into a separate fund but goes into the consolidated fund does not also necessarily make a levy a tax. Though a 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. That the money collected does not go into a separate fund but goes into the consolidated fund does not also necessarily make a levy a tax. Though a 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. Further) neither the incidence of the fee nor the service rendered need be uniform. That other besides those paying the fees are also benefited does not detract from the character of the fee. In fact, the special benefit or advantage to the payers of the fees may even be secondary as compared with the primary motive of regulation in the public interest. Nor is the Court to assume the role of a cost accountant. It is neither necessary nor expedient to weigh too meticulously the cost of services rendered etc. against the amount of fees collected so as to evenly balance the two. A quid pro quo in the strict sense is not the one and only true index of a fee, nor is it necessarily absent in a tax." 22. The Supreme Court held, that the correlation ship between levy and the services rendered so accepted is one of general character and not of mathematical exactitude. The Supreme Court further held that the concept of fee and quid pro quo has changed in a reference to time. The Supreme Court observed: "It is thus well settled by numerous recent decisions of this 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." 23. But, reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1986 SC 726 , Om Prakash v. Giri Raj Kishori on behalf of the petitioner is out of context. The issue before the Supreme Court was the constitutional validity of Haryana Development Fund Act, 1983. A cess was imposed upon dealers in agricultural produce carrying on the business in certain notified market areas set up under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 in the State of Haryana. The issue before the Supreme Court was the constitutional validity of Haryana Development Fund Act, 1983. A cess was imposed upon dealers in agricultural produce carrying on the business in certain notified market areas set up under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 in the State of Haryana. The Act was held to be unconstitutional on the ground that the cess collected vested with the State Government and not in the Municipality or Marketing Committee or any other authority having limited functions. The Supreme Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case before it found that the amount collected by way of cess would not be spent within the market area where the dealer is carrying on his business and the purpose for which it was collected, the Supreme Court, observed, was as vague as it could be. For the reason, the Supreme Court found, that the amount collected by way of cess under the Act could be spent by the State Government at its will on any purpose which it considers to be the development of almost the entire rural area of the State of Haryana, it held that it was constitutionally impermissible for any State Government to collect any amount which is not strictly in the nature of fee, in the guise of a fee. The Supreme Court further held that it is for the Court on scrutiny of the scheme of the levy, to determine its real character. 24. This Court has determined the real character of the impost which the transport agencies have been required to pay when they charge for their services in transporting cattle into and out of the cattle fair. The services of the transport agencies are available for hire and reward and are consequential and incidental to the cattle fair, which, in turn is so held under a licence of this Zila Parishad. The fee levied as tahbazari has a nexus with the cattle fair and it has not been effectively denied that Zila Parishad does render service, the details of which have been mentioned above and are otherwise enumerated in paragraph 27 and paragraph 28 of the counter-affidavit. Ali that the petitioner contends in the rejoinder affidavit is that in any case, services rendered by Zila Parishad are its statutory obligations. Ali that the petitioner contends in the rejoinder affidavit is that in any case, services rendered by Zila Parishad are its statutory obligations. On this aspect, the Supreme Court has already laid down the law to the effect that services rendered cannot be mathematically equated. 25. In keeping with the decision of the Supreme Court, the charge of Tahbazari as a fee, on transport agencies operating for hire and reward as a consequence and incidental to the cattle fair permitted to be held under the licence by the Zila Parishad, is regular and not illegal. 26. As trade, industry and commerce keep pace with industrialisation and modern means of transport being one of them, a cattle fair in a rural area is not an exception. Today modem means of transport haul cattle to the village fair. In days gone by animals were walked to the village market, a mode which was slow and tedious. Today they are dumped at these fairs in hordes and numbers, this modem means of transport facilitate. There is more trading in numbers and varieties, when cattle come into the villages at such cattle fairs from all over the hinterlands. They arrive safely and quickly. It is difficult to overlook the fact that modern transport vehicles would not be able to ply to and from the cattle market but for access to public roads and places. The Tahbazari collected as a fee on the sale of services for hire and reward, consequential and incidental to the cattle fair, in a reference to the context, thus, is in keeping with the modern approach to cartel fairs which utilise transport agencies and new' generation vehicles. 27. Thus this Court cannot grant either of the prayers sought in the writ petition and holds the issues raised in it as misconceived. 28. The petition is thus misconceived and dismissed, with costs.