T. SURYA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks declaration in this writ petition that the notice dated 20-8-1996 issued by the first respondent-Corporation is null and void, illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents not to demand enhanced licence fee. The hotel by name "mahalaxmi" represented by its managing Director filed the present writ petition. The petitioner has been carrying on the hotel business in the said premises from 1983 onwards. The erstwhile municipal Council of Rajahmundry under the provisions of A. P. Municipalities Act, 1965 granted licence to the petitioner for the said business and fixed the licence fee at rs. 1,100/- so soon after the establishment of the hotel by the petitioner. Recently rajahmundry Municipality has been declared to be a Corporation and the said corporation is now governed by the provisions of the A. P. Municipal corporation Act. Elections to the corporation have not been conducted but a Special Officer has been appointed who has been functioning as such. He issued the impugned notice dated 20-8-96 enhancing the licence fee from Rs. 1,100/- to rs. 9,625/- with penalty of Rs. 4,263/- and for a sum total of Rs. 12,788/- for renewing the licence for the year 1996-97. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been filed. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner Sri G. Krishnamurthy contends that the impugned notice is invalid and is arbitrary and inasmuch as the Special officer has no power to enhance the licence fee without the prior approval of the council. The learned Counsel further contends that the enhancement is many fold from the original licence fee and therefore on the very face of it is arbitrary. The standing Counsel for Municipal corporation, Rajahmundry, Sri S. Prathap while resisting the petition contends that a resolution has been passed permitting special Officer to impose the licence fee. The learned Counsel invite my attention to the resolution dated 15-2-1996. ( 2 ) AT any rate on the first point, admittedly no elections have been conducted so far electing the Council of rajahmundry Municipal Corporation. The notice has been issued obviously by the special Officer who has been representing the Corporation. He issued the proceedings dated 15-2-1996 clearly mentioning inter alia that a Resolution No. 683, had been passed as required under Section 262 (sic. The notice has been issued obviously by the special Officer who has been representing the Corporation. He issued the proceedings dated 15-2-1996 clearly mentioning inter alia that a Resolution No. 683, had been passed as required under Section 262 (sic. 622) subsection (2) of the Hyderabad Municipal corporations Act 1955 enabling the Special officer to levy licence fee. In the absence of any Council the Special Officer who has been posted represents the Council and discharges, all the functions of the Council. This is obvious from Section 70-G of the hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act. Therefore, the petitioner cannot question the impugned notice on the premise that the provisions of Section 622 sub-section 2 of the said Act have not been complied with. The first contention of the writ petition therefore merits no consideration. ( 3 ) COMING to the second ground of arbitrariness the earlier licence fee was fixed so soonafter the establishment of the hotel business in the year 1983 somewhere in the year 1984-85 under the provisions of the erstwhile A. P. Municipalities Act, 1965. Enhancement was made for the first time demanding the licence fee under the impugned notice for the year 1996-97 that means after more than one decade. The fixation of licence fee mainly depends to the extent of the service rendered by the corporation and the element of quid pro quo. Whether the present licence fee as fixed at Rs. 9. 6257- is commensurate with the services rendered is a matter for consideration. It is purely a factual aspect got to be decided on the evidence adduced on either side relevant, on the point to be adjudicated upon. I am afraid, the same cannot be adverted to in this writ petition and a finding of fact cannot legitimately be given in regard thereto. In view of the time gap from the date of the original fixation of the licence fee and the date of enhancement which is more than a decade even on the face of the amount fixed under the impugned notice being nine fold increase it cannot per se be concluded as arbitrary without adverting to other question of services being rendered after the formation of the Municipal Corporation. The petitioner can therefore challenge the samr if he is so advised in regularly instituted suit before a Court having jurisdiction. The petitioner can therefore challenge the samr if he is so advised in regularly instituted suit before a Court having jurisdiction. There is no other evidence available on record to conclude that the licence fee as fixed under the impugned notice is quite arbitrary. ( 4 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails and is dismissed in the light of the observations made supra. No costs.