JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J.—Petitioner, who claims to be the General Secretary of the Himachal Pradesh Ayurved Sammelan, being a Union of Ayurvedic Practitioners and being a branch of All India Ayurvedic Congress has, in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioned the validity of subsection (5) inserted, on the basis of the H. P. Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners (Amendment) Act, 1977, hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act, to section 15 of the principal Act, namely, H P. Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 1958 (Act No. 2 of 1968) as also the addition of sub-ulers (5) and (7) under Rules 3 and 32, respectively, in the HP, Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners (General) Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. 2. The challenge, which the petitioner has made to the insertion of sub-section (5) to section 15 of the principal Act as also sub-rule (5) and sub-rule (7) to Rules 3 and 32, respectively, to the Rules is on the ground that the principal Act, being a taxing Statute, the subsequent amendment by insertion or a new provision therein cannot be given any retrospective effect and non-rendering of any service of extension of any facility to the petitioner or other registered practitioners either by the Government or by the Board in lieu of the receipt of renewal fee, makes the imposition of fee as a tax which is bad in law. The petitioner has also challenged the demand for an additional amount over and above the renewal fee, which has been asked to be paid by the petitioner and other registered practitioners, on the ground that such a demand is wholly unauthorised. 3. The principal Act was enacted with a view to consolidate and amend the law relating to the Registration of Practitioners of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine and to regulate the practice in such system. Clause (d) of section 2 defines Board to mean the Board of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Mediciae, Himachal Pradesh established and constituted under section 3. Registered Practitioner as per Clause (k) of section 2 is a practitioner whose name is entered in the register maintained under section 14 The Act provides for the constitution of the Board, election of the members of the Board, their term, the manner of filling up of the vacancies, disability for continuing as member of the Board or disqualifications. Registered Practitioner as per Clause (k) of section 2 is a practitioner whose name is entered in the register maintained under section 14 The Act provides for the constitution of the Board, election of the members of the Board, their term, the manner of filling up of the vacancies, disability for continuing as member of the Board or disqualifications. It also provides for the staff to be appointed and recruited by the Board. Section 13 of the Act says that there shall be a Registrar who shall be appointed by the Board. Section 14 enumerates his duties primary amongst them being to maintain the register and to act as the secretary of the Board. Sub-section (2) of section 14 says that register shall be in such form as may be prescribed and shall contain the names, addresses and qualifications of every registered practitioner with the dates on which such disqualifications were acquired and it shall have three parts. Part-I containing the names of those practitioners who are qualified to practice Ayurvedic System and Part-II containing the names of those who are qualified to practice Unani System of Medicine and Part-Ill containing the names of practitioners registered under sub-section (2) of section 15. The Registrar, under sub-section (3) of section 14 is required to get the register corrected by making therein any material alterations in the addresses and qualifications of practitioners, which may occur as also by deletion of the names of Registered Practitioners, who die or whose names are directed to be removed from the register under the provisions of the Act or who cease to practice. Section 15 makes a provision for persons possessing qualifications or entitled to practice to get their names duly registered. Section 16 contains restrictions with regard to certain persons whose names cannot be entered in Register There is a complete machinery provided in the Act alongwith procedure for hearing of complaints and grievances of the persons, who, though qualified, but whose names are not registered, or practitioners, whose names are ordered to be removed from the register or for hearing of complaints of professional misconduct etc. against Registered Practitioners. There is also a provision for filing of Appeals etc section 54 is a rule making power of the Government and section 55 of the Act authorises the Board to make its own regulations. against Registered Practitioners. There is also a provision for filing of Appeals etc section 54 is a rule making power of the Government and section 55 of the Act authorises the Board to make its own regulations. In exercise of rule making powers, the rules have been framed by the Government. 4. The principal Act on its enactment did not have any provision for payment of any renewal fee by a person whose name was duly registered in the Register. By the Amendment Act, sub-section (5) was inserted to section 15 of the principal Act, providing that Registration under section 15 shall be valid only for a period of 3 years from the date of entry in the Register and on expiry of every three years, registration shall have to be got renewed on payment of renewal fee as may be prescribed. This insertion of sub-section (5) according to petitioner has been made retrospective by use of the words "and shall be deemed always to have been inserted". Sub-rule (5) added to Rule 3 says that every registered practitioner registered under section IS shall renew his registration after three years. Sub-rule (7) added to Rule 32 prescribes the renewal fee as Rs. 20. 5. As noticed above, the first submission made on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging these amendments is that since no service is rendered and facility provided, levy of renewal fee is a tax, which cannot be justified. The respondents, in their return, have taken up a plea that the levying of fee is to augment the resources of the Board, which renders valuable services to Practitioners. The Board has no other resources except some grant-in-aid given by the Government of Himachal Pradesh and in case fee is not charged from the Practitioners, it will not be possible for the Board to meet the expenses for its establishment and for carrying out the purposes of this Act, 6. Section 25 of the Act says that all moneys received by the Board as fees under the Act shall be applied for the purposes of the Act in the prescribed manner. Clause (j) in sub-section (2) of section 54 empowers the Government to make rules providing for the manner in which moneys received by the Board as fees shall be applied. Clause (j) in sub-section (2) of section 54 empowers the Government to make rules providing for the manner in which moneys received by the Board as fees shall be applied. Rules 21 and 22 say that the moneys payable to the Board on being received shall be deposited in State Bank of India. Its operation is prescribed in Rule 23. Rule 25 provides for the maintenance of various account books Rule 26 requires the accounts of the Board to be audited annually by the Accountant General of Himachal Pradesh. Annual statement of income and expenditure of preceding financial year ending 31st of March is required to be prepared under Rule 27 and estimates for the income and expenditure for the ensuing year are also required to be prepared under Rule 28. These estimates are further required to contain provision for the fulfilment of the liabilities of the Board and for effectually carrying out the provisions of the Act. It is the Board, which is to sanction the estimates. There are various rules providing for the manner of expending the amount realised by the Board. Reading of the provisions of the Act and Rules makes it clear that the amount realised by way of renewal fee is taken as in income of the Board, which is required to be spent on various activities of the Board, which includes the cost of keeping the register up-to-date, costs of meeting the expenditure of the staff, costs of the proceedings as regards complaints etc. or grievances for and against the petitioners. There are other various expenses, though not specified, which can be gathered from the Scheme of the Act and Rules. There is no contest by the petitioner to the stand taken by the respondents that this amount is meant to augment the resources of the Board, which renders valuable services to the practitioners. It is significant to mention that there is a penalty provided for unlawful assumption of title of registered practitioner and for prohibition to practice by persons who are not registered. The Act also provides for publication of list of practitioners. A registered practitioner is exempted from serving of inquests. It cannot be said that the Board is not rendering any service or not providing any facilities to the registered practitioners. There is no generic difference between a tax and a fee. The Act also provides for publication of list of practitioners. A registered practitioner is exempted from serving of inquests. It cannot be said that the Board is not rendering any service or not providing any facilities to the registered practitioners. There is no generic difference between a tax and a fee. Broadly speaking, a tax is a 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. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others, Appellants v. Mohd. Yasin, Respondent, AIR 1983 SC 617, it has been held that : "Compulsion is not the hall-mark 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. Further, neither the incidence of the fee nor the service rendered need be uniform. The others 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 the services rendered etc. against the amount of fees collected so as to evenly balance the two A broad correlation ship is all that is necessary. 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” 7. Referring to the provisions of the Act and Rules, there is no manner of doubt that some expenditure is incurred by the Board According to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, such expenditure is not incurred directly or even primarily on the registered practitioners and there is no special benefit or advantage conferred. Referring to the provisions of the Act and Rules, there is no manner of doubt that some expenditure is incurred by the Board According to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, such expenditure is not incurred directly or even primarily on the registered practitioners and there is no special benefit or advantage conferred. But as has been clearly held in Mohd Yasins case (supra) that the expenditure need not be incurred directly nor even primarily in connection with the special benefits or advantages conferred to the practitioners under the Act and there need not be any fastidious balancing of the cost of services rendered with the fee collected A sum of Rs 20 collected from the practitioner after a lapse of 3 years of original entry in the register cannot be said to be disproportionate amount for making the costs of keeping the register up to date, for publication of lists, for hearing of complaints etc and for keeping a constant vigil against unauthorised practitioners How can the Board be expected to effectively discharge its obligation by not having at its disposal sufficient funds to pay for its employees. After all expenses have to be met from within the limited resources. In case, to argument its income, a registered practitioner is asked to pay a sum of Rs. 20 after a lapse of 3 years as a renewal fee for continuing to keep his name on the register, it cannot be said that Board is not rendering any service to him or extending any privilege. The entire expenditure is incurred by the Board is for regulating the practice in Ayurvedic and Unani systems of medicine. The practitioners continue to have the privileges as provided in the Act so long their name exists in the register. In this view of the matter, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the levy of renewal fee is bad in law has no force. 8. The petitioner has not challenged the legislative competence of the amendment. Otherwise also, the State Legislature was competent to carry out the amendment. Carrying out of retrospective amendment by imposition of a fee, which is nothing but a renewal fee, cannot be challenged that it has been made effective from retrospective date. 8. The petitioner has not challenged the legislative competence of the amendment. Otherwise also, the State Legislature was competent to carry out the amendment. Carrying out of retrospective amendment by imposition of a fee, which is nothing but a renewal fee, cannot be challenged that it has been made effective from retrospective date. When the State Legislature is competent to make amendment, it has also power to make retrospective amendment which proposition has clearly been laid down by the Apex Court in B. Barterjee v. Anita Pan, (1975) 1 SCC 166 and S KG Sugar Limited v State of Bihar, (1974) SCC 827. Validity of imposition of fee with retrospective effect was upheld in Sudhindra Thirtha Swaminar and others. Appellants v. The Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,- Mysore and another. Respondents, AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1966. Imposition of market fee with retrospective effect was also upheld in Ram Chandra Kumar & Company v State of Uttar Pradesh, (1980) Supp. SCC 27. In case the amendment Act made renewal fee payable with retrospective effect, it nowhere provided for any penal consequences for its non payment The only hardship which registered practitioners were to face was to pay the amount of such renewal fee in lump sum We are of the view that challenge to the provisions of levying of renewal fee with retrospective effect is groundless. 9. The additional amount, which the petitioner has been called upon to pay alongwith the renewal fee are postage and other miscellaneous expenses which demand has been justified by the respondents by taking up a stand that amount is to meet postage and other petty charges as the resources of the Board are lean. We have not been pointed out any authority on the basis of which this demand can be upheld. Levying of renewal fee is justified under the provisions of the Act, but there is nothing in the Act or in the Rules which can be said to be authorising or empowering the respondents to call upon the petitioner to pay such additional amount on the ground that the resources of the Board are lean 10. Accordingly we hold that the demand of an additional amount of Rs 3 or 5 by way of postage and other petty charges over and above renewal fee is totally unjustified. 11. No other point was urged. 12. Accordingly we hold that the demand of an additional amount of Rs 3 or 5 by way of postage and other petty charges over and above renewal fee is totally unjustified. 11. No other point was urged. 12. In view of what we have said above, the writ petition is partly allowed. While upholding the levying of renewal fee and the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 15, sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 and sub-rule (7) of Rule 32, we quash that part of the demand in notice Annexure-PA issued to the petitioner by which the petitioner has been called upon to pay Rs. 3 over and above the renewal fee. The parties are left to bear their own costs.