GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act. The petitioner runs a hotel in the name and style of Messrs. Raj Towers at Eluru Road, Governerpet, Vijayawada. The petitioner applied to the Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada for grant of a trade on 18-9-1990. The hotel was inaugurated on 30-8-1990. It was intimated by the Corporation that the licence fee for a hotel business is Rs. 10,000. 00 per year. Pursuant to such an information only, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 25,000. 00 for the licence fee for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92 and the Corporation having agreed to adjust or refund the amount of Rs. 5,000. 00which was paid in excess, did not do so. The petitioner was called upon to pay a further sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 towards licence fee for the year 1992-93 without deducting the abovesaid excess amount of Rs. 5,000. 00. During the year 1993-94, the petitioner was informed by the Corporation that there is an increase of 50% in the licence fee and therefore, the petitioner was called upon to pay Rs. 15,000. 00 and the same was paid by the petitioner. It was informed that there is a further increase in the licence fee by 10% and the petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 16,500. 00 and the said amount was also paid by the petitioner. The respondents by impugned proceedings dated 2-3-1996 called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 30,975. 00 as balance for the year 1993-94, a sum of Rs. 18,150. 00 for the year 1995-96 and a further sum of Rs. 9,075. 00for the year 1995-96 on the ground of belated fee. Even prior to the impugned proceedings, the petitioner sent a demand for Rs. 10,000. 00 on 1-3-1995, but the same was rejected by the respondents. On approaching the respondents, the petitioner was furnished with a copy of resolution wherein it has been stated that whenever a payment is made belatedly, 25% of the additional fee would be levied on the licence fee for the first year for a period of 60 days and thereafter, it would be 50%. On approaching the respondents, the petitioner was furnished with a copy of resolution wherein it has been stated that whenever a payment is made belatedly, 25% of the additional fee would be levied on the licence fee for the first year for a period of 60 days and thereafter, it would be 50%. The said resolution has been passed by the then Special Officer, but it should be done in consonance with law and the fee cannot be increased when there is no elected body. The Special Officer cannot play the role of an elected body. Levying such additional fee tantamounts to a penalty and therefore, the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. There is nothing on record with the Corporation to show that such an exercise as contemplated under Section 622 (2) of the Act, has been done by the Corporation while fixing the rate at Rs. 10,000. 00per year. There are no guidelines for fixing the trade licence fee. Levying of penalty pursuant to the resolution is equally bad in law. The terms and conditions of the resolution annexed to the material papers, may be read as part and parcel of the affidavit. An amount of Rs. 18,150. 00 is made leviable for hotels. On a reading of item 4 of the terms and conditions, it appears that the licence fee is based upon rental value. The licence fee cannot be based on rental value. The licence fee is one charged by the Corporation for the services it rendered. There should be an element of qui pro quo though not to a mathematical precision. In pursuance of the impugned order, the respondents are refusing to renew the trade licence of the petitioner. Having aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been preferred seeking for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in fixing the trade licence fee without any guideline and levying 25% additional fee for the belated payment made within 60 days and thereafter the additional fee at the rate of Rs. 50% as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents not to collect the amount in pursuance of the endorsement made in proceedings RC No. F13/4038/95, dated 2-3-1996. 50% as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents not to collect the amount in pursuance of the endorsement made in proceedings RC No. F13/4038/95, dated 2-3-1996. ( 2 ) THE respondents filed a common counter contending inter alia that the rules concerning the payment of licence fee payable under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 are made applicable to Vijayawada Municipal Corporation as per Act 23 of 1981. There is no discrimination shown against the petitioner levying the licence fee. As per the licence fee rules, the petitioner has to pay Rs. 10,000. 00 towards the licence fee for the petitioner s trade operation of the Boarding and Lodging for the year 1990-91. The petitioner did not pay the licence fee before the commencement of business on 18-8-1990 and the petitioner paid the licence fee till February, 1991 belatedly. As per the licence fee rules, the petitioner has to pay 50% belated fee and he willingly paid Rs. 15,000. 00 vide challan dated 28-2-1991 towards licence fee for his trade operation for boarding and lodging for the year 1990-91. The petitioner paid the licence fee for the years 1991-92 and 1992-93 in time by deposing Rs. 10,000. 00under challans as it was the licence fee payable as per the schedule under the rules. As per the rules, the licence fee was increased for 1993-94 by 50% and for 1994-95 by 10% on the existing licence fee of Rs. 15,000. 00. The terms and conditions of the licence are subject to future enhancement as notified in the schedules. Fixation of the fee is made basing upon the rental value and also with the sanction of the Corporation as required under the Act. For the year 1995-96, the licence fee was enhanced by 10% over the then existing licence fee of Rs. 16,500. 00. An endorsement dated 22-12-1995 was issued to the petitioner to pay amount of Rs. 3,30,975. 00 for licence fee with belated fee for the year 1995-96 and the balance amount of Rs. 3,750. 00 for the year 1993-94 and the same was served on the petitioner. But, the petitioner did not pay the same inspite of the subsequent endorsement dated 2-3-1996 being sent to the petitioner. The enhancement was done as per the provisions of the Act and the schedules thereunder and the same was communicated to the assessee from time to time. 00 for the year 1993-94 and the same was served on the petitioner. But, the petitioner did not pay the same inspite of the subsequent endorsement dated 2-3-1996 being sent to the petitioner. The enhancement was done as per the provisions of the Act and the schedules thereunder and the same was communicated to the assessee from time to time. When there was no elected body, the Special Officer is empowered under the Act to pass the resolution. The very object of posting the Special Officer is to perform its statutory functions of the Corporation till an elected body assumes charge. The petitioner is not entitled to the direction without compliance of licence for the renewal of trade licence for the year 1996-97 and also further renewals. The petition is therefore liable to be dismissed. ( 3 ) ON the rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration is whether the respondents are justified in enhancing the licence fee and levying the additional fee for the belated payment and the action of the respondents in issuing impugned proceedings dated 2-3-1996 warrants any interference by this Court? ( 4 ) HEARD Mr. P. Venugopal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. Venkataramana, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation. ( 5 ) RELYING on Section 622 (2) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is nothing on record with the Corporation to show that the procedure while fixing the licence fee, has been followed in conformity with the above provisions. It is further contended that, neither the principal Act nor the subordinate legislation, confers any powers to demand and levy the belated fee, and, as such, it suffers from statutory infirmity. Therefore, the action of the respondents in fixing the trade licence fee without any guidelines and levying the additional fee, is illegal and arbitrary. ( 6 ) AS against this, it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel that there is no discrimination shown against the petitioner while levying the licence fee and as per the proceedings of the Corporation, the licence fee rates payable by the several trades having enumerated in the schedule and the schedules are being amended from time to time with the new rates of fee as decided by the Corporation. It is further contended that the Corporation has complied with the provisions of Section 622 (2) of the Act while fixing the licence fee inasmuch the fixation of fee will be made basing upon the rental value and also with the sanction of the Corporation. The enhancement of licence fee is supported by a valid and lawful resolution passed by the competent authority and therefore, without challenging the resolution, the petitioner is not entitled to claim that the enhancement and the belated fee are bad. In support of his contentions, he relied on a decision of the Apex Court reported in Secunderabad Hyderabad Hotel Owners Association v. Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, 1999 (1) Supreme 136, wherein the Apex Court has held thus:"in the first place, it is not necessary that a fee should only be in the form of a lumpsum fee. A fee can also be graded as in the present case. The Corporation has chosen the quantum of rent paid as the criterion for the quantum of fee to be charged. The rent under the relevant provisions of activities carried on by these lodging houses and eating houses, the area in their possession has a direct nexus with the extent of business activities. The need for cleanliness and hygiene, the generation of garbage and the extent of regulation that may be required depend upon the size of the premises which in turn controls the extent of activity. Undoubtedly, in a given case, if the premises are old, the rent may be less but that does not mean that classifying premises on the basis of the rent paid has no connection with the quantum of fee charged. " ( 7 ) UNDER the Act 23 of 1981, the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Act, 1981 came into force on the 6/06/1991 and Section 7 of the said Act contemplates the application of the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 to the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. ( 8 ) SECTION 622 (1) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Act, 1955 empowers the Commissioner or any officer authorised under the provisions of Section 119 of the Act to grant such a licence or written permission subject to such restrictions and conditions. ( 8 ) SECTION 622 (1) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Act, 1955 empowers the Commissioner or any officer authorised under the provisions of Section 119 of the Act to grant such a licence or written permission subject to such restrictions and conditions. But, the copy of the licence in question has not seen the light of the day, so as to elicit whether the action of the respondents, is confined to such restrictions and conditions or exercised arbitrarily. ( 9 ) THOUGH there is no express proviso under the provisions of the Act, as to the imposition of the additional fee as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, from the provisions of Section 622 (1) and (2), under which licence can be issued by the Commissioner or the authorised officer, subject to restrictions and conditions, it implies that there are such terms and conditions while issuing the licence, for ensuring prompt payment of the licence fee. ( 10 ) SECTION 622 (2) of the Act further fortifies the enhancement of licence fee from time to time by the Commissioner with the sanction of the Corporation. At this juncture, it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel that there is no such deviation inasmuch the fixation of the fee will be made basing upon the rental value and also with the sanction of the Corporation as required under the Act. It is further contended that the fixation of licence fee, its enhancement and belated fee are supported by valid resolution of the Corporation and the petitioner having not challenged the said resolutions, cannot maintain the writ petition. ( 11 ) THE Corporation bears the burden of lifting garbage, maintenance of hygiene and sanitation inasmuch as the floating population in Vijayawada, being the headquarters and one of the biggest Railway junctions in the State and bus complex and pilgrimage center, use the premises either for lodging or eating. In case of activities carried by the lodging houses and eating houses, the area in their possession has a direct nexus with the extent of business activities, and, that the need for cleanliness and hygiene, the generation of garbage and the extent of regulation, that may be required, depends upon the size of the premises. In case of activities carried by the lodging houses and eating houses, the area in their possession has a direct nexus with the extent of business activities, and, that the need for cleanliness and hygiene, the generation of garbage and the extent of regulation, that may be required, depends upon the size of the premises. The fee charged in the instant case is not only for the services rendered, but also to ensure that the petitioner complies with the terms and conditions of the licence. In such a situation, the imposing of additional fee, is also within the reach of terms and conditions of the licence as contemplated under Section 622 (1) and (2) of the Act, which is also on the other hand to ensure prompt payment of the licence fee, for an affective and dynamic administration of the Corporation in rendering the services to the public. ( 12 ) IN the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above decisions and the provisions of the Act, I am of the considered opinion that the levy of licence fee and its enhancement subsequently, is within the ambit of the statute, and it cannot be said to be excessive and arbitrary keeping in view the need for cleanliness and hygiene and the generation of garbage proportionate to the floating and density of the population in Vijayawada town and that the imposition of additional fee, which is, as already stated, for ensuring prompt payment of the licence fee, is not arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, the respondents are justified in issuing the impugned endorsement and accordingly, this writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. ( 13 ) IN the result, this writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.