KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) BY this writ application the petitioners have asked for relief for declaration that they are not liable to pay octroi/terminal tax in view of the exemption given under para 3 (f) of the Port Blair Municipal Council Octroi/terminal Tax Bye-Laws framed under the Andaman and Nicobar Municipal Regulations, 1994 and the Municipal authorities are not authorised to realise the terminal/octroi tax from the petitioners or their members. A further challenge has been thrown to the notification dated 21st May, 1993, issued by the Lieutenant Governor for realising of octroi/terminal tax from the petitioners in exercise of his power under Section 71 (6) of the Andman and Nicobar Islands (Municipal Boards) Regulation, 1957, contending the same being ultra vires and unconstitutional. The writ-petitioners have also prayed for further relief for refund of the terminal/octroi tax in so far as the S. S. 1. Units are concerned and the units at Port Blair within the jurisdiction of Municipal Council. ( 2 ) THE petitioners, excepting the petitioner no. 2, are a group of Small Scale industries and they are manufacturing wood products. The business of the petitioners is of amongst other, purchasing of logs/timbers and manufacturing wood products. ( 3 ) IN terms of a notification, the Municipal Council has been realising octroi/terminal tax from the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the Lieutenant Governor unlike the Chief Commissioner under the provisions of law, has no authority and/or jurisdiction to act and/or discharge legislative function to frame regulations authorising Municipal Council to impose and realise octroi/terminal tax upon amongst others, wood products. It is further contended that the Lieutenant Governor has only jurisdiction to act administratively. He has no rule making power; so, the notification dated 21st May, 1993 issued by the Lt. Governor imposing octroi/terminal tax under section 71 (6) of the said Regulations of 1957 is unconstitutional and without any authority of law. Moreover it is contended by the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to get exemption from paying octroi/terminal tax in terms of para 3 (f) of the Port Blair Municipal Council Octroi/terminal Tax Bye-Laws framed under Andman and Nicobar Municipal Regulation, 1994; but such exemption has not been granted to the petitioners whereas manufacturer's controlled by the Government are granted such exemption by the Lieutenant Governor. Therefore, they are entitled to get refund of the octroi/terminal tax which has already been paid. ( 4 ) NO affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the Lt. Governor or Union of India in spite of direction being given. Only the Municipal Council has filed affidavit-in-opposition to oppose this application. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Municipal Council, it has been contended that the Lt. Governor is the Successor-in-office of the Chief Commissioner. Admittedly, the Chief Commissioner had legislative function under the law. Therefore, the Lt. Governor being successor-in-office enjoys the same power and privilege. So, the Lt. Governor has jurisdiction to take legislative action. Moreover, under Article 243x read with Article 243 Z/b of the Constitution of India, the municipal authority has been authorised to impose any duty or taxes. Therefore, the municipal authority derives its power and/or authority under the Constitution itself. The Lieutenant Governor while exercising legislative power has authorised the municipal authority under the aforesaid regulation to impose levy amongst other any octroi or terminal tax on animals or dogs or goods brought into or sent out of municipal area. ( 5 ) MR. Tapan Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, argues that the Lieutenant Governor has no authority to exercise legislative power inasmuch as his appointment cannot be termed to be replacement of the office of the Chief Commissioner as per notification issued by the President. So, his purported legislative authorisation to the municipal authority to impose the aforesaid tax is ultra vires of the Constitution. He may have authority to act executively, but not legislatively. Moreover, provision for realising octroi/terminal tax. In Clause (g) of Regulation 80 of the Andman and Nicobar Islands (Municipal) Regulation, 1994, is not in accordance with the provisions as mentioned in Entry 52 of List II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid entry 52 of the said Schedule provides for imposition of tax on the entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein. Therefore, the provision in the aforesaid regulation is absolutely inconsistent with the provisions made in Entry 52 of the Schedule C of List II of the Constitution. Therefore, he argues, that the aforesaid provision for imposition of octroi and/or entry tax by the municipal authority is contrary to Articles 301 and 303 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the provision in the aforesaid regulation is absolutely inconsistent with the provisions made in Entry 52 of the Schedule C of List II of the Constitution. Therefore, he argues, that the aforesaid provision for imposition of octroi and/or entry tax by the municipal authority is contrary to Articles 301 and 303 of the Constitution of India. Under such circumstances the petitioners are entitled to get refund of all the entry taxes already paid. He also argues that the aforesaid imposition and/or realisation of octroi or terminal tax on animals or dogs or goods brought into or sent out of the municipal area cannot be termed to be entry of goods for consumption, use or sale. ( 6 ) MR. Roy, learned counsel, could not make any effective submission in this matter in view of non-filing of affidavit-in-opposition. He submits that in spite of advice given by him, concerned officer has not come forward to file any affidavit. However, he argues that so far as the authority and/or jurisdiction of the Lieutenant Governor as to power of legislation is concerned, it has been decided and set at rest by a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in a case of Dilip Chowdhury v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies in ILR 2000 (1) Cal 16 : ( AIR 2000 Cal. 228 ). It has been held amongst other by the Division Bench that the Lt. Governor is the successor-in-office of the previous Chief Commissioner and he has authority to exercise function even if without notification being issued. So, the Lt. Governor is, quite competent to act and discharge function legislatively. ( 7 ) MR. Parekh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipal Council, submits that since it has been held by this Court that the Lt. Governor has authority to discharge his legislative function, therefore, the impugned Regulation of 1994, authorising municipal authority to levy and realise octroi or terminal tax, is absolutely lawful and under the provisions of the Constitution. He argues further that under Article 243x read with Article 243 Z/b of the Constitution of India, power upon the municipal authority can be conferred for imposition or realisation of toll tax or charges. He argues further that under Article 243x read with Article 243 Z/b of the Constitution of India, power upon the municipal authority can be conferred for imposition or realisation of toll tax or charges. He also refers to the decision of this Court on this point, in Dilip Chowdhury v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies reported in ILR (2000) 1 Cal 16 : ( AIR 2000 Cal 228 ) (Andaman and Nicobar Series ). He further refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2000 (3) S. C. C. 1 : ( AIR 2000 SC 122 ) (Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Nadiad Nagar Palika), whereby the words, "consumption and use" have been examined and defined. So, he contends, that the Lieutenant Governor in exercise of his legislative function has given power by way of approval to the municipal authority. Therefore, it is wholly lawful and justified and the writ application is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. ( 8 ) HAVING heard the respective submissions of the learned lawyers, it appears that it is the first contention of the writ-petitioners that the Lt. Governor is not successor-in-office of the Chief Commissioner and he has no legislative power authorising municipal authority to impose and levy octroi or entry tax. It appears that this identical point as to the question of legislative authority of the Lt. Governor was raised in the aforementioned case of Dilip Chowdhury (supra ). It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court that Lt. Governor appointed by the President under Article 239 of the Constitution of India in place of Chief Commissioner can discharge the power and function of the Chief Commissioner without any notification under Article 240 of the Constitution of India and without any amendment of the Andaman and Nicobar Island Co-operative Societies Regulation, 1973. The power of Chief Commissioner can be exercised by the Lt. Governor. It has been further held that Lt. Governor is successor-in-office of the Chief Commissioner in view of Sections 17 and 18 of the General Clauses Act; although there is no notification under the Constitution of India empowering the Lt. Governor to discharge the powers and functions of the Chief Commissioner. The Administrator appointed by the President under Article 239 of the Constitution of India is his delegate. Therefore this contention of the writ petition fails. I hold the Lt. Governor to discharge the powers and functions of the Chief Commissioner. The Administrator appointed by the President under Article 239 of the Constitution of India is his delegate. Therefore this contention of the writ petition fails. I hold the Lt. Governor is the successor of Chief Commissioner in all respects. ( 9 ) IN my view, having regard to the scheme of the Constitution, Lt. Governor has authority to exercise his legislative function and this would be apparent from Article 239b read with Article 240 of the Constitution of India. ( 10 ) HERE is a question as to whether municipal authority can be given any power by way of approval to impose and realise octroi or terminal/entry tax by the Lt. Governor or not. It has been rightly argued by Mr. Parekh and I accept the same, that Article 243x read with Article 243 Z/b, State Legislature in case of States, and in case of Union Territories, Administrator of the Union territory appointed under Article 239 of the Constitution (in this case Lt. Governor) is competent to authorise the municipal authority to realise taxes. This power is derived from the constitution itself. Therefore, I hold that the Lt. Governor being the Administrator and successor of Chief Commissioner has rightly by framing a regulation, given authority to the municipal authorities. The contention of Mr. Mukherjee that the provision of clause (e) of Regulation 80 of the aforesaid Regulation regarding imposition and realisation of octroi or terminal tax on animals or dogs or goods brought into or sent out of the municipal area is contrary to and inconsistent with Entry 52 of List II of the VIIth Schedule is wholly misplaced here. The subject mentioned in Entry 52 of List II of VIIth Schedule relate to power to legislation. Power of legislation in a particular field is one thing and authorization in exercise of constitutional power is another thing. Both these things cannot be equated. ( 11 ) IN my view the aforesaid power under Article 243x read with Article 243 ZB of the Constitution is in addition to what the State by legislation, under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII may levy, collect and appropriate taxes on the entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use or sale. There is no conflict between the two provisions. There is no conflict between the two provisions. This will be clear from careful reading of the aforesaid two provisions which are reproduced hereunder :-"243x. The Legislature of a State may, by law,- (a) authorise a Municipality to levy, collect and appropriate such taxes, duties, tolls and fees in accordance with such procedure and subject to such limits; (b) assign to a Municipality such taxes, duties, tolls and fees levied and collected by the State Government for such purposes and subject to such conditions and limits; (c) provides for making such grants-in-aid to the Municipalties from the Consolidated Fund of the State; and (d) provide for constitution of such Funds for crediting all moneys received, respectively, by or on behalf of the Municipalties and also for the withdrawal of such moneys therefrom, as may be specified in the law. 243 ZB. The provisions of this Part shall apply to the Union territories and shall, in their application to a Union territory, have effect as if the references to the Governor of a State were references to the Administrator of the Union territory appointed under article 239 and references to the Legislature or the Legislative Assembly of a State were references in relation to a Union territory having a Legislative Assembly, to that Legislative Assembly :provided that the President may, by public notification, direct that the provisions of this Part shall apply to any Union territory or part thereof subject to such exceptions and notifications as he may specify in the notification. Entry 52 of List II of VIIth Schedule - Taxes on the entry of goods into a local area for comsumption, use or sale therein. ( 12 ) THEREFORE, I am of the view that Lieutenant Governor has rightly approved by the impugned notification to realize octroi tax at revised rate. ( 13 ) AS far as question of exemption from paying octroi tax and machinery, spare parts and further refund of the same already paid by the petitioner is concerned this claim and contention are not entertainable simply for the reason that the petitioner's unit has been set up five years ago. So this benefit cannot be extended for the period beyond five years that is contrary to clause 3 (f) of the notification published on 16th December, 1999 in the A. N. Gazette. So this benefit cannot be extended for the period beyond five years that is contrary to clause 3 (f) of the notification published on 16th December, 1999 in the A. N. Gazette. ( 14 ) THEREFORE, I hold that the petitioners have no merit in this case and no relief as sought for can be granted. Accordingly, this application is dismissed without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .