Judgment : The Kodaikanal Boat Club, a registered society represented by its Honorary Secretary (hereinafter referred to as the Club) is the petitioner in this writ petition. The same has been filed to call for the records of the 4th respondent/ Executive Officer, Kodaikanal Township in his proceedings ROC No.7542/86/E-l dated 25. 1987 and quash the same and consequently forbear the 4th respondent from insisting the petitioner to obtain licence and payment of licence fee for plying its boats in the Kodaikanal Lake. .2. In the year 1863 Sir’Vir Henry Levenge, a retired Collector of Madurai, converted the then existing swamp into a beautiful lake, which turned out to be a major attraction for Kodaikanal. In the year 1890, the Club was founded with the object of serving the needs of the local resident and visitors to Kodai Hills. Till the year 1926, only Europeans were allowed to be members and only after 1926 Indians were admitted as members of the Club. On 110. 1906, the then Secretary of the Club informed the Tahsildar, Kodaikanal, that apiece of land in Survey No.234 was bought from a private person, on which the present Club was built in 1892, and that permission to occupy the land was given free from any rent or charges. Consequently, on 4. 1909, the then Madurai Collector passed an order that the Club built in 6 cents of land in Survey No.234 in Kodaikanal must be considered as the private property of the Club. Besides this, 8 cents of land situated in the same survey number, was also given on lease on 25. 1921 for a period of 49 years. Subsequently on 9. 1975, the lease of the 8 cents was extended for a further period of 49 years and the Club is in possession of the said property and is using the same for the purpose of the activities of the Club. 3. There are four types of members in the Club viz., (i) Temporary Members; (ii) Daily Members; (iii) Honorary Members; and (iv) Permanent Members. The general management of the Club is vested in a committee of 15 including the President and the Honorary Secretary, all of whom shall be elected annually by the General Body of the Club. The Collector of Madurai is the ex-officio Chairman and the Director of Tourism Government of India, is one of the Committee Members of the club. The general management of the Club is vested in a committee of 15 including the President and the Honorary Secretary, all of whom shall be elected annually by the General Body of the Club. The Collector of Madurai is the ex-officio Chairman and the Director of Tourism Government of India, is one of the Committee Members of the club. In the year 1951, the Township of Kodaikanal was in charge of the management of the lake even though it was the Club which was maintaining it properly. Since 1951 the management of the lake was transferred to the Fisheries Department and it is that department which is now in charge of the Kodaikanal Lake. The lake and the boating in the lake is the main attraction for the tourists in Kodaikanal. The Club is doing the service of providing boats to the tourists ever since long time with the knowledge and concurrence of the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India and the Fisheries Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. .4. According to the petitioner Club, the 4th respondent has nothing to do with the lake after its management has been transferred to the Fisheries Department in the year 1951. Even prior to 1951, the club with the aid of the Government as well as the members, was maintaining the lake by weeding out and removing the weeds from the lake. The 4th respondent has not done any service in this regard. In fact, Kodaikanal Township was formed only nine years after the Club was formed. It is also submitted that by virtue of the long user ever since 1890 the Club has acquired a right to ferry in the Kodaikanal Lake by prescription and grant could also be inferred by the principle of the Lost Grant. 5. On 14. 1987, a communication was received by the Club from the 4th respondent stating that the Kodaikanal Lake belongs to the Kodaikanal Township as per Sec.125 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that the Club should specify under what authority the boats are being plied in the lake. The 4th respondent further called upon the Club to produce any permission given by the Township or any lease that has been given by the Government or the Collector. Again, on 25. The 4th respondent further called upon the Club to produce any permission given by the Township or any lease that has been given by the Government or the Collector. Again, on 25. 1987, under the impugned order the 4th respondent claimed that the Kodaikanal Lake belongs to the Kodaikanal Township and that the Club is not entitled to ply boats without obtaining licence from the Kodaikanal Township and calling upon the club to remit a licence fee of Rs.5,000 per boat per year, within one week from the date of the impugned order. The Club on 6. 1987 informed the 4th respondent that Sec. 125 of the Act does not apply and that the lease granted by the Government specifically lays down that the property shall be used for the purpose of erecting and maintaining the boat house and that plying of boats is a right annexed to the boat house. The Club further represented that the licence fee of Rs.5,000 per boat per year is arbitrary and without any basis. However, the 4th respondent insisted on the obtaining of licence and posing threat of interference with the plying of boats and therefore, the Club having left with no effective alternative remedy, has filed the present writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 6. A common counter-affidavit was filed by one D.Paulrai, Deputy Secretary to Government, Fisheries and Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, on behalf of respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5. According to him the control of the Kodaikanal Lake was vested with the Fisheries Department as per G.O.Ms. No.2063, Development Department, dated 5. 1951 and the Government ordered to discontinue the annual grant of Rs.850 paid to the Kodaikanal Municipality for clearing the weeds in the Kodaikanal Lake. Further, permission for a further period of ten years was also sanctioned upto 1972 to the Fisheries Department in Kodaikanal lake control in G.O.Ms. No.2034, Food and Agriculture, dated 6. 1962. According to the Kodaikanal Hill Fishing Rules, 1969, issued in G.O.Ms. No.1123, Agriculture Department, dated 4. 1970, the water in which fishing is controlled by the Department of Fisheries is as follows: 1. The Berejam Lake; 2. The Kodaikanal Lake, 3. The Bryant Park Pond; and 4. All other rivers and streams and their tributaries within the boundary of Kodaikanal Taluk. 7. No.1123, Agriculture Department, dated 4. 1970, the water in which fishing is controlled by the Department of Fisheries is as follows: 1. The Berejam Lake; 2. The Kodaikanal Lake, 3. The Bryant Park Pond; and 4. All other rivers and streams and their tributaries within the boundary of Kodaikanal Taluk. 7. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that no private boat except the boats of the Club is allowed in the lake for plying pleasure boats. The 4th respondent has no authority to deal with this matter and that the 4th respondent is not entitled to issue proceedings on licence fee for the boats plying in the lake at Kodaikanal. As per the Kodaikanal Hill Fishing Rules 1969, the Director of Fisheries alone is empowered to disallow the use of power boats or other kinds of boats in any of the waters of Kodaikanal Taluk. .8. The 4th respondent has filed a separate counter affidavit. According to him, the Kodaikanal Municipal Council was constituted in the year 1899, which was reconstituted as Municipal Township Committee from 10. 1960 under the Act. As per Sec.125(1) of the Act, all public sources, springs and public resources, tanks, cisterns, fountains, wells, etc., existing at {he time of coming into force of the above Act shall vest with the Municipal Council and be subject to its control. Hence it is contended that the Kodaikanal Lake vests with the Municipal Council. However, under Sec.125(2) of the Act, the State Government by notification limit or define such control or may assume the administration of any public source of water supply and public land adjacent and appertaining thereto after consulting the Municipal Council. The 4th respondent has denied that the lake’s management was transferred to the Fisheries Department. It is further submitted that the lake is covered by Sec.125(1) of the Act and the Government has not retained administrative power of the lake under Sec.125(2) of the Act but has granted administrative control and managements as per Sec. 125(1) of the Act of the Kodaikanal Lake as per G.O.Ms. No.1825, Rural Development and Local Administration Department, dated 29. 1969. Therefore, the 4th respondent has jurisdiction to demand the licence fee of Rs.5,000 per boat per year. 9. The Club has filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations contained in the 4th respondent’s counter-affidavit. No.1825, Rural Development and Local Administration Department, dated 29. 1969. Therefore, the 4th respondent has jurisdiction to demand the licence fee of Rs.5,000 per boat per year. 9. The Club has filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations contained in the 4th respondent’s counter-affidavit. It is reiterated that the 4th respondent has no locus standi to question it since the Government of India as well as the Fisheries Department of Government of Tamil Nadu are permitting the plying of boats in order to attract the tourists to Kodaikanal and are also granting aid from time to time for the development of the Club. 10. The matter was taken up for hearing and during the hearing, the 5th respondent/Collector of Dindigul Anna District has filed a separate counter affidavit introducing a new case. The counter affidavit was filed on 16. 1994 by T.Pitchandi, Collector of Dindigul Anna District. The same has been filed as a supplement to the affidavit already filed by the 4th respondent. The 5th respondent has denied the various averments, particularly the transfer of the lake’s management to the Fisheries Department. It is stated that several lakhs are being spent by the Township currently on civic amenities and maintenance, and that the prescriptive right cannot be raised before this court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution, but the same has to be proved by appropriate civil proceedings. It is further reiterated that the lake vests with the Kodaikanal Township under Sec. 125(1) of the Act and the Government has not retained its administrative control of the lake under Sec. 125(2) of the Act. Therefore, the 4th respondent has jurisdiction to demand licence fee of Rs.5,000 per boat per year. Even though the question of alternative remedy is raised, the same was not pressed at the time of hearing. .11. The writ petition was admitted by S.Mohan, J., as he then was, on 16. 1987 an interim order was granted originally which was modified by K.Venkataswami, J., as he then was, by directing the Club to pay half of the disputed levy during the pendency of the writ petition. Liberty was also given to the Club to move the court for any further direction. Aggrieved by this, the Club filed W.A.Nos.2108 and 2109 of 1987. Liberty was also given to the Club to move the court for any further direction. Aggrieved by this, the Club filed W.A.Nos.2108 and 2109 of 1987. A Bench of this Court, which heard the Writ Appeals, was of the opinion that it was not proper or in the interest of justice to vacate the injunction at this stage and therefore, it disposed of the appeals with a direction that the interim injunction granted by the Bench on 211. 1987 and made absolute on 210. 1988, shall enure during the pendency of the writ petition. 12. Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the Club submitted that the 4th respondent has no locus standi to issue the impugned order. According to him, Sec. 125 of the Act does not apply to Kodaikanal Lake and therefore, the 4th respondent cannot claim any right over it. The Government transferred the management of the lake from the municipality to the Fisheries Department and that department is fully in charge of the management of the lake ever since 1951. It is also not disputed that the Fisheries Department and the Club are carrying out the weeding out operation in the lake with the aid given by the Government of Tamil Nadu. It is also seen from the correspondence placed before this Court that they are all only with the Fisheries Department as well as with the Government of Tamil Nadu and that the 4th respondent has no right whatsoever in the lake. In any event, the water from the lake was actually used for irrigation purposes even though it was stopped at the instance of the Club and it was agreed to maintain certain level of water for boating by allowing to draw about two feet of water for irrigation. Therefore, as per the Proviso to Sec.125 of the Act, the lake does not come under Sec.125 of the Act. This statement is not denied by the Government in their counter-affidavit. 13. Sec.125 of the Act, which deals with vesting of works (water supply and powers) reads as follows: "125. Therefore, as per the Proviso to Sec.125 of the Act, the lake does not come under Sec.125 of the Act. This statement is not denied by the Government in their counter-affidavit. 13. Sec.125 of the Act, which deals with vesting of works (water supply and powers) reads as follows: "125. Vesting of works in municipal councils: All public water courses and springs and all public reservoirs, tanks, cisterns, fountains, wells, stand pipes and other water works existing at the time of the coming into force of this Act or afterwards made, laid or erected and whether made, laid or erected at the cost of the Municipal council or otherwise, and also any adjacent land (not being private property) appertaining thereto shall vest in the council and be subject to its control. Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply to any work which is, or is connected with, a work of irrigation or to any adjacent land appertaining to any such work. 2. The State Government may by notification limit or define such control or may assume the administration of any public source of water supply and public land adjacent and appertaining thereto after consulting the Municipal Council and giving due regard to its objections, if any." 14. Under Sec.125(2) of the Act, the State Government has powers to retain the administration of any public source of water supply situate in a Township. In the instant case, the Government as early as 1951 has handed over the management of the lake to the Fisheries Department and therefore, the Kodaikanal Township cannot claim any licence fee for plying boats in the lake, that the Government is the absolute owner of the lake and that not even the management rights have been given to the Kodaikanal Township and therefore, the 4th respondent as rightly contended by Mr.G.Rajagopalan, has no jurisdiction whatsoever to issue the impugned proceedings calling upon the Club to remit licence fee of Rs.5,000 per boat per year. As already stated, respondents 1 to 3 and 5 have on 111. 1991, filed a common counter-affidavit through the Deputy Secretary, Fisheries Department, specifically stating that the Fisheries Department is functioning in Kodaikanal since 5. 1952 and that the control of the lake was vested with the Fisheries Department as per G.O.Ms. No.2063, Development Department, dated 5. As already stated, respondents 1 to 3 and 5 have on 111. 1991, filed a common counter-affidavit through the Deputy Secretary, Fisheries Department, specifically stating that the Fisheries Department is functioning in Kodaikanal since 5. 1952 and that the control of the lake was vested with the Fisheries Department as per G.O.Ms. No.2063, Development Department, dated 5. 1951 initially for a period of ten years and further permission was granted by the Government from time to time under various Government Orders. 15. It is also pointed out that the Kodaikanal Hill Fishing Rules, 1969, issued in G.O.Ms. No.1123, Agriculture Department, dated 4. 1970, and the four lakes viz., Berejam Lake, Kodaikanal Lake, Bryant Park Pond and all other rivers etc., within the boundary of Kodaikanal Taluk, are under the control of the Department of Fisheries. Under Rule 19(2)(iv) of the Kodaikanal Hill Fishing Rules, 1969, the Director of Fisheries can permit or disallow the use of power boats or other kind of boats in any of the waters. It is also not in dispute that no private boats except the boats owned by the Club, are allowed in the lake for plying pleasure boats. In fact, when the 4th respondent issued permission for plying boats in Kodaikanal Lake without the knowledge or in consultation with the Fisheries Department, the 4th respondent was requested by the Fisheries Department to stop issuing licence or renewing for plying pleasure boats. Thus, the action of the Fisheries Department clearly reveals that the 4th respondent has no authority to demand any licence fee from the Club and that the Fisheries Department alone has the right and control on the lake and not the 4th respondent. It is also seen that the Kodaikanal Township is not entitled to issue pro- ceedings demanding licence fee for boats plying in the lakes at Kodaikanal. 16. As the maintenance of the lake was vested with the Fisheries Department, the Government stopped the payment of an annual grant of Rs.850 to the 4th respondent for clearing the weeds in the lake as per G.O.Ms. No.2063, Development Department, dated 5. 1951. The Government in G.O.Ms. No.2082, Public Works Department, dated 27. 1965, sanctioned a sum of rupees one lakh for the improvement of Kodaikanal Lake with the Central assistance. The Club has also received a sum of Rs.12,500 as loan for purchase of boat as per G.O.Ms. No.2063, Development Department, dated 5. 1951. The Government in G.O.Ms. No.2082, Public Works Department, dated 27. 1965, sanctioned a sum of rupees one lakh for the improvement of Kodaikanal Lake with the Central assistance. The Club has also received a sum of Rs.12,500 as loan for purchase of boat as per G.O.Ms. No.217, Food and Agriculture, dated 2. 1963, and as per Memo No.28705/E 1/63-4 dated 4. 1963. A sum of Rs.5,000 was also sanctioned to the Club by the Collector of Madurai as loan for purchase of new boat as per proceedings dated 20.3.1964. Under these circumstances, the claim made by the 4th respondent claiming vesting of public sources, springs, tanks, etc., under Sec. 125 (1) of the Act cannot at all be correct. 17. This apart, under Sec.125(2) of the Act, the State Government has not issued any notification limiting or defining the said control. A bald allegation was made in the counter-affidavit of the 4th respondent, followed by the counter-affidavit now filed by the 5th respondent dated 16. 1994, that the lake’s management was not transferred to the Fisheries Department. Therefore, the contention of Mr.K.Sridhar, that it shall not be lawful for the Club to enter upon any premises connected with water supply without the permission of the 4th respondent, cannot at all be countenanced. As already stated, the management of the lake is already vested with the Fisheries Department. It is also not known on what basis the 4th respondent is insisting upon the payment of Rs.5,000 per year as licence fee. It is contended that the lease agreement do not speak anything about the plying of boats, which is definitely distinct from erecting and maintaining a boat club, and that the lease is only for a small piece of land where the boat house has been effected, and further, the lease is not for whole lake, which vests in Kodaikanal Township. Such a contention has to be necessarily rejected in view of the documentary evidence placed by respondents 1 to 3 and 5. .18. Such a contention has to be necessarily rejected in view of the documentary evidence placed by respondents 1 to 3 and 5. .18. By virtue of Sec.125(2) of the Act, the State Government has power to retain the administration of any public source of water supply situated in the Township and in the instant case, as already stated, the Governmental early as 1951 handed over the management of the lake to the Fisheries Department and therefore, the 4th respondent cannot claim any licence fee for plying boats in the lake. The demanding of licence fee by the 4th respondent from the Club for plying boats in the lake, in my view, is without any authority of law. Chapter XII of the Act does not make provision for getting licence for ferrying. This Chapter deals only with the obtaining of licences for animals, slaughter houses, public market, etc., and this chapter does not deal with the obtaining of any licence in regard to the ferrying. There is no other provision in the Act by which the 4th respondent can claim licence fee in respect of plying of boats in the lake. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the entire proceedings of the 4th respondent demanding licence fee from the Club is vitiated and therefore it is liable to be quashed. 19. This apart, any fee can be collected by any public authority only if that public authority renders any service to the club or other persons . In this case, no material is placed before this Court to show that the 4th respondent is rendering any service or assistance to the club. Therefore, the 4th respondent, is not entitled to claim any licence fee from the Club. There should be clear evidence to show that the 4th respondent is doing some service to the Club in order to claim licence fee. In the absence of plea or evidence to show that the 4th respondent was rendering any service or assistance, the 4th respondent is not entitled to claim any licence fee, or any tax. Even in the case of tax, as per Art.265 of the Constitution, it should be levied only with the authority of law. If at all, any fee can be levied only if the municipality or Township rendering any service to the Club. Even in the case of tax, as per Art.265 of the Constitution, it should be levied only with the authority of law. If at all, any fee can be levied only if the municipality or Township rendering any service to the Club. In the absence of any proof, if is not open to the 4th respondent, to demand any licence fee from the club. It is also not in dispute that the Municipality has not claimed any licence fee towards the lake ever since the Municipality was formed in 1899 or subsequently after the Township was formed. The 4th respondent did not object when the Government transferred the management of the lake to the Fisheries Department. It is also contended by the Club that the Club plies boats ever since 1890 and therefore it had acquired a right to ferry by prescription and by implied grant, and that no person has any right to interfere with the plying of beats by the Club in the lake. Therefore, the 4th respondent cannot interfere with the same either by asking for licence fee or any other fee or tax. .20. A lease deed dated 25. 1921 was entered into between the Club and the Secretary of State for India in Council. Under the said lease deed, all the piece and parcel of land measuring 8 cents in S.No.234, lake Poramboke, Kodaikanal Settlement together with all rights, easements, advantages appurtenances whatsoever to the demised premises, was given to the Club for a period of 49 years. Under Clause 3 it is specifically mentioned that the demised premises shall be used only for the purpose of erecting and maintaining a boat house thereon. However, an interesting contention was raised in the counter-affidavit of the 5th respondent that thelease deed did not mention anywhere about the authority given to the club to ply boats in the Kodaikanal lake. I am unable to appreciate this contention. The lease is granted for the purposes of erecting and maintaining a boat house. The club can use the lake only for plying boats. The lease deed is signed by the Collector of Madurai and by the Honorary Secretary of the Club. 21. It is also seen from G.O.Ms. No.1561, dated 16. I am unable to appreciate this contention. The lease is granted for the purposes of erecting and maintaining a boat house. The club can use the lake only for plying boats. The lease deed is signed by the Collector of Madurai and by the Honorary Secretary of the Club. 21. It is also seen from G.O.Ms. No.1561, dated 16. 1956, that prior to 1951, the Municipal Council, Kodaikanal, was getting from the Government, a subsidy of Rs.850 per annum for the clearance of weeds and prevention of silting, etc., in the lake. In 1951, the control and maintenance of the lake were transferred to the Fisheries Department and therefore, the payment of Rs.850 per annum to the Municipal Council was also stopped. It is further seen from the said Government Order that since the Collector of Madurai has stated that the Club has expressed its willingness to attend to these works provided it is given a subsidy of Rs.800 per annum, the Government considered the offer of the club in consultation with the Chief Engineer (General) Additional, Director of Industries and Commerce and the Board of Revenue and sanctioned an expenditure of Rs.800 per annum, being the amount of grant payable to the Club for clearance of silt and weeds from, and for the proper maintenance of, the Kodaikanal Lake for one year. This document, in my opinion, clinches the whole issue. This document clearly establishes the case of the Club that the work of clearance of silt, etc., was entrusted to the Club from 1951 onwards and that the subsidy was sanctioned to the Club by the Government in consultation with the various authorities. This document further goes to show that the 4th respondent has nothing to do with the lake or its maintenance after 1951. .22. G.O.Ms. No.1628, Food and Agriculture Department, dated 19. 1961, is an order by the Government of Madras accepting the proposal of the Director of Fisheries for sanction of a sum of Rs.500 as a grant for carrying out the work of weeding and desilting in the Kodaikanal Lake during 1961. The Collector of Madurai himself by his proceedings in R.Dis. No.64297/ G/72-J9 dated 23. 1961, is an order by the Government of Madras accepting the proposal of the Director of Fisheries for sanction of a sum of Rs.500 as a grant for carrying out the work of weeding and desilting in the Kodaikanal Lake during 1961. The Collector of Madurai himself by his proceedings in R.Dis. No.64297/ G/72-J9 dated 23. 1974 considering the reports submitted by the Tahsildar, Kodaikanal, and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Periakulam accorded sanction for the renewal of lease in respect of the lands in Survey No.234/B7 (four cents) and 234/B10 (four cents) of Kodaikanal village in favour of the Club for a further period of 49 years from 9. 1970 subject to the collection of lease rent at Rs.8 per annum and subject to the usual conditions. It is also stated in that letter that the Club has also executed lease deed in the form prescribed. This document clearly goes to show that the lease rent of Rs.8 per annum alone is payable to the Government by the club and that the Club is entitled to continue as lessee and enjoy the lake for a period of 49 years from 9. 1970, which would expire only by 38. 2019. 23. The letter of the Asst. Director of Fisheries (Regional), Dindigul to the 4th respondent in R.C.No.811/ C/87 dated 15. 1987 will again prove the case of the Club that the lake is in charge of the Department of Fisheries and that the 4th respondent has no right for granting permission to Carlton Hotel to ply boats in the Kodaikanal Lake. The letter is extracted below: “Letter from Thiru. J. Noble M.Sc. M.S. (U.S.A.), Asst. Director of Fisheries, (Regional) Dindigu-3 to the Executive Officer, Kodaikanal Township, Kodaikanal, in R.C.No.811/C/87 dated 15. 1987. Sub: Kodaikanal Lake - Permission granted to Carlton Hotel, Kodaikanal for plying boats in Kodaikanal Lake - Reg. Ref: Letter No. 2182/86, dt. 22. 1987 of the Sub-Inspector of Fisheries, Kodaikanal, with copy of G.O.Ms.No. 3979, dt. 112. 1962. 2. This office letter No. 81l/C/87 dated 13. 1987 and 5. 1987. 3. Letter No. 282/86 dated 15. 1987. The Sub-Inspector of Fisheries, Kodaikanal has reported in his letter dated 22. 1987 that you have granted permission for plying four numbers of boat in the Kodaikanal lake by the Carlton Hotel, Kodaikanal. Also, he has reported that in your proceedings No. 3528/86/E-l dated 112. 1987 and 5. 1987. 3. Letter No. 282/86 dated 15. 1987. The Sub-Inspector of Fisheries, Kodaikanal has reported in his letter dated 22. 1987 that you have granted permission for plying four numbers of boat in the Kodaikanal lake by the Carlton Hotel, Kodaikanal. Also, he has reported that in your proceedings No. 3528/86/E-l dated 112. 1986, you have granted permission to ply the boats without mentioning the purpose for which the boats are going to be run. Till date, you have not informed either to the Sub-Inspector of Fisheries, Kodaikanal or to this office for the letters cited 1 and 2. I understand that you gave permission to Carlton Hotel to ply 2 numbers of rowing boats upto 25. 1987 and two numbers of paddle boats upto 25. 1987. As the lake is in charge of the Dept. of Fisheries, you have no right for granting permission to Carlton Hotel to ply the boats in the Kodaikanal lake. You are requested to inform this offic1e within 7 days from the date of receipt of this letter for granting permission to Carlton Hotel. (Sd) Asst. Director of Fisheries, (Regional), Dindigul. Copy to: Sub Inspector of Fisheries, Kodaikanal, for information. Copy to the Manager, Carlton Hotel, Kodaikanal Further renewal will be under your risk.” 24. I have already seen that the 4th respondent is not rendering any service to the Club and therefore not entitled to claim any licence fee and if at all any fee can be levied, it could be only if the Municipality or Township renders any service to the Club. 25. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view, that the 4th respondent has failed to satisfy this Court that he has authority to demand and collect licence fee or any other fee or tax from the Club. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. However, there will be no order as to costs.