Honble SHETHNA, J.–There were six draftsman in the year 1978 in Pali. Each one of them was given licence. Yearly licence fee was Rs. 15/-. The respondent No. 3 Hasti Mal was one of those six draftsman who was also paying yearly licence fee of Rs. 15/-. The petitioner is Municipal Council, Pali which was charging Rs. 15/-per year towards licence fee from the draftsman since number of years and continued to charge the same till 31.3.76. However, the licence fee of Rs. 15/-was raised to Rs. 250/-per year with effect from 1.4.76 as per the order at Annex. 1. By letter dated 30.5.78 (Annex.2), it was brought to the notice of Executive Officer of the petitioner Municipality that the enhanced licence fee has not been deposited by the licencee, therefore, it was recommended that till they do not deposit the requisite fee, the plans submitted by them should not be approved. The then Administrator of the petitioner Municipality called all the licencees including the respondent no. 3 for discussion. On 3.6.78, all the draftsman including respondent no. 3 Hasti Mal agreed to submit final reply within 15 days and thereupon it was agreed that their plans may not be returned. However, the same was not done, therefore, on 23.6.78, the same was brought to the notice of the Executive Officer and it was stated that they may be called to remain present on 26.6.78 at 3.00 P.M. (Annex.3). on 27.6.78, the petitioner Municipality issued notice to all the draftsman including respondent no.3 calling upon them to deposit the outstanding fees upto 30.6.78 failing which the plan prepared by them would not be accepted from 1.7.78. (2). Thereafter, all the licencees deposited the outstanding fee of Rs. 250/-per year but the respondent no. 3 submitted an application on 29.8.78 to the effect that the enhanced licence fee may not be charged from him. His application was dismissed by the petitioner Municipality on 4.10.78 (Annex. 5). It was challenged by the respondent no. 3 by way of revision before the Additional Divisional Comm-issioner, Jodhpur who accepted his revision as per the order dated 9.1.90 (Annex.6). The same is challenged by the petitioner Municipality by way of this petition. (3). Learned counsel Mr. Bhandari for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner was entitled to charge licence fee, therefore, Rs. 15/-per year was charged from all the draftsman till 1976. The same is challenged by the petitioner Municipality by way of this petition. (3). Learned counsel Mr. Bhandari for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner was entitled to charge licence fee, therefore, Rs. 15/-per year was charged from all the draftsman till 1976. Later on it was agreed to enhance the same to Rs. 250/-per year. Having agreed, the respondent no. 3 back out and challenged the same before the Additional Divisional Commissioner who has without properly understanding the same allowed the revision petition. He submitted that the Additional Divisional Commissioner was wholly wrong in holding that there were no Rules or Regulations for enhancing licence fees, therefore, it cannot be enhanced. As against that the learned counsel Mr. Rajpurohit for the respondent no. 3 submitted that the Additional Divisional Commissioner was fully justified in allowing the revision petition because in absence of any Rules and Regulations, the licence fees cannot be imposed and it cannot be enhanced. (4). Before appreciating the aforesaid contentions raised by the learned coun-sels for the parties, few admitted facts are required to be stated which are as under: 1. Till the passing of the impugned order at Annex. 1 enhancing the licence fee from Rs. 15/-to Rs. 250/-per year, all the draftsman were paying licence fee of Rs. 15/-per year. 2. After the licence fee was enhanced from Rs. 15/-to Rs. 250/-per year as per the impugned order at Annex. 1, all the draftsman including the respondent no. 3 Hasti Mal agreed to pay the licence fee at the enhanced rate of Rs. 250/-as per Annex. 3. 3. Out of six draftsmen except the respondent no. 3 Hasti Mal, all other five draftsmen started to pay enhanced licence fee at the rate of Rs. 250/-per year. (5). In revision petition, the respondent no. 3 challenged only the enhancement of licence fees from Rs. 15/-to Rs. 250/-per year before the Additional Divisional Commissioner and the Additional Divisional Commissioner by his impugned order dated 9.1.90 (Annex. 6) held that the enhancement of licence fee from Rs. 15/-to Rs. 250/-per year was not proper and not in accordance with law and the Rules, therefore, he quashed the order passed by the petitioner Municipality of raising the licence fee from Rs. 15/-to Rs. 250/-per year and consequential order dated 4.10.78 (Annex. 5) of cancelling the renewal application of the respondent no. 3. (6). 15/-to Rs. 250/-per year was not proper and not in accordance with law and the Rules, therefore, he quashed the order passed by the petitioner Municipality of raising the licence fee from Rs. 15/-to Rs. 250/-per year and consequential order dated 4.10.78 (Annex. 5) of cancelling the renewal application of the respondent no. 3. (6). In my opinion, the Additional Divisional Commissioner was wholly wrong in accepting the revision petition filed by the respondent no.3. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that the respondent no.3 had never challenged the charging of the year licence fee. The challenge was only a limited challenge of enhancing the licence fee from Rs. 15/-to Rs. 250/-per year. It is also not in dispute that the respondent no. 3 was paying licence fee at the rate of Rs. 15/-per year since 1957 till 1976 i.e. for almost 20 years. With the price rise, if the Municipality had taken a decision to enhance the licence fee from Rs. 15/-to Rs. 250/-per year, then such an administrative order cannot be interfered by the Additional Divisional Commissioner and that too in his revisional jurisdiction. The Additional Divisional Commissioner completely overlooked the most important aspect of the case name-ly that all the six draftsmen including the respondent no. 3 agreed to pay the enhanced licence fee at the rate of Rs. 250/-per year. Having agreed, it was not open to the respondent no. 3 to challenge the same in revision. (7). In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed and the impugned order at Annexure 6 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner is hereby quashed and set aside.