V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) IN all these writ petitions filed by the Co-operative Banks, Societies or institutions the facts are common or similar and the issue involved is t he same. Hence, they are all heard together and disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the Government Order No. CMW "283 CLM 96, dated 17-2-2001 by which audit fee is revised by the State government. It is the case of the petitioners that the levy and collection of audit fee on the basis of Working Capital or Turnover is arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to Rule 30 of the Kamataka co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (hereinafter called as 'rules' ). According to the petitioners, the revised audit fee has no co-relation to the actual service rendered by the Auditors and other staff of the Audit department in auditing. Since the impugned Government Order is issued on the basis of the proposal sent by the Director of Co-operative audit, the learned Counsel who have appeared for some of the petitioners have contended that it amounts to sub-delegation of the power of the State Government which is not permissible in law. Hence, the impugned Government Order is a nullity in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed. In support of the contentions urged, large number of decisions have been relied upon by them. Consequently, petitioners have prayed for quashing the impugned Government Order and also the consequential Demand Notices issued to them by the concerned respondents in their respective petitions. ( 3 ) A detailed synopsis of argument apart from statement of counter is filed on behalf of the State and the Co-operative Department justifying the impugned order and notices and praying for dismissal of these writ petitions. ( 4 ) MR. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. KM. Nataraj, Mr. R. V. Ramesh, Smt. Hemalatha Mahishi, Mr. Hegde uadlamane and Mr. R. Viswanath, learned Counsels for the petitioners and Mr. M. Keshava Reddy, learned Government Pleader were heard at length. Both sides have relied upon a catena of decisions in support of their respective submissions. It is not necessary to refer to all those citations and only the decisions which are relevant to consider the contentions urged will be referred to in due course. M. Keshava Reddy, learned Government Pleader were heard at length. Both sides have relied upon a catena of decisions in support of their respective submissions. It is not necessary to refer to all those citations and only the decisions which are relevant to consider the contentions urged will be referred to in due course. ( 5 ) ON the basis of the contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the following points arise for consideration.- (a) Whether the audit fee as revised by the State Government is without jurisdiction? (b) Whether levy and collection of audit fee on the basis of working Capital or Turnover is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to rule 30 of the Rules? (c) Whether the audit fee fixed in the impugned Government order should be co-relation to the actual service rendered by the audit Department? (d) Whether the impugned action amounts to sub-delegation of power to the Director of Co-operative Audit by the State government? ( 6 ) BEFORE proceeding to consider the aforementioned points, certain salient features relating to audit fee have to be looked into. It should be noted that the last revision of audit fee was made in the year 1986. After a lapse of 11 years, the Director of Co-operative Audit had sent his proposal to the State Government for revision of audit fee on 30-4-1997 and again on 29-4-2000. The impugned order was passed on 17-2-2001. Thus, the revision of audit fee was made after a lapse of 15 years. During this period there were various financial changes which include escalation in cost or prices, revision of pay scales of staff of the Audit department etc. The resultant position was collection of deficit audit fee. ( 7 ) THE effect of deficit audit fee is reflected in the report of the comptroller and Auditor General of India for the year ended 31st march, 1998. Some of the observations are extracted hereunder.- "7. 7. 4 Highlights: Owing to non-revision of audit fees commensurate with the expenditure thereon, the excess of expenditure over the demands for the audit fees including audit cost during the years 1992-93 to 1996-97 ranged from Rs. 156. 78 lakhs to Rs. 248. 82 lakhs. XXX there was short levy of audit fees of Rs. 13. 67 lakhs in 14 cases due to incorrect adoption of turnover for the years 1992-93 to 1996-97. XXX xxx 7. 7. 156. 78 lakhs to Rs. 248. 82 lakhs. XXX there was short levy of audit fees of Rs. 13. 67 lakhs in 14 cases due to incorrect adoption of turnover for the years 1992-93 to 1996-97. XXX xxx 7. 7. 5 Audit fees (including audit cost): (i) xxx the figures of audit fees (including audit cost) estimated, demanded and actually realised vis-a-vis the actual expenditure incurred on audit of Co-operative Societies during the five years from 1992-93 to 1996-97 were as under.- (In lakh rupees) audit Fees (including audit cost) Year Expenditure Incurred Budget Estimates Demandraised (percentage to expenditure) Realised (Percentage to demand raised) 1992-93 770. 53 460. 00 521. 71 (68) 492. 03 (94) 1993-94 839. 84 500. 00 647. 93 (77) 584. 15 (90) 1994-95 909. 37 545 00 720 55 (79) 643 97 (89) 1995-96 1013. 50 640. 50 804. 63 (79) 762. 23 (95) 1996-97 1050. 81 745. 00 894. 03 (85) 902. 93 (101) Total 4584. 05 3588. 85 3385. 31" ( 8 ) POINT (a ).-This point relates to jurisdiction of the State government for fixation and revision of audit fee. Under the provision of section 129 (2) (y) of the Kamataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the State Government has got power to make rules for levy of audit fee on Co-operative Societies. Rule 30 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), pertains to audit fee and the relevant portion of the same is as under.-"audit fees.- (1) Every Co-operative Society shall pay to the state Government (or at a rate equal to the average cost incurred for appointment of Auditors under Rule 441 of the Karnataka civil Services Rules, 1959), a fee for the audit of its accounts for each Co-operative year in accordance with the scale fixed by the director of Co-operative Audit, with the previous approval of the state Government in respect of the class of Societies to which it belongs". (emphasis supplied) the words "in accordance with the scale fixed by the Director of co-operative Audit" assumes much importance. It is in accordance with this, the Director of Co-operative Audit sent the proposal to the State government for its approval and the Government accorded approval. Therefore, the impugned order is in accordance with Rule 30 of the rules. (emphasis supplied) the words "in accordance with the scale fixed by the Director of co-operative Audit" assumes much importance. It is in accordance with this, the Director of Co-operative Audit sent the proposal to the State government for its approval and the Government accorded approval. Therefore, the impugned order is in accordance with Rule 30 of the rules. Hence, the contention that it is without jurisdiction, does not hold water and the same is rejected. ( 9 ) POINT (b ).-This point relates to the justification for levy and collection of audit fee on Working Capital or Turnover. While sub-rule (1) of Rule 30 envisages payment of audit fee in accordance with the scale fixed by the Director of Co-operative Audit, sub-rule (1-A) thereof prescribes payment of audit fee in accordance with the provisions of rule 441 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1959. Thus, both these sub-rules are conflicting with each other. In such an event, the former sub-rule shall be given more importance. If sub-rule (1-A) is given effect to, sub-rule (1) of Rule 30 become redundant. Such an interpretation cannot be given. Sub-rule (1-A) shall be given effect only to a limited purpose in relation to audit work of small quantity where the volume of audit work involved is very less and the duration is very less. In respect of regular audits involving inspection of voluminous records, registers, documents, vouchers, receipts etc. , requiring huge service, sub-rule (1) of rule 30 shall be applied. ( 10 ) MR. Keshava Reddy, learned Government Pleader in the brief synopsis of the arguments has relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in W. A. Nos. 4603 and 4604 of 1997 disposed of on 29-5-1998 and the observations are made therein are as under.-". . . . The only contention of the appellants is that there is no nexus between the services rendered and the fees levied. It is to be kept in mind that audit fee is prescribed as long back as in the year 1952 and keeping in mind the inflation and the increase of work, the audit fee underwent revision in 1976 and the 1986 and the present revision in the year 1996. The present revision shows that the audit fee is to be fixed following the scale mentioned therein. A fee of 15 paise for Rs. The present revision shows that the audit fee is to be fixed following the scale mentioned therein. A fee of 15 paise for Rs. 100/- on the working capital or business turnover of the Society with a minimum audit fee of Rs. 50/- is fixed. So far as the Primary Co-operative Agricultural and rural Development Banks and the Primary Agricultural Credit co-operative Societies are concerned, the fee fixed is at 50% of the audit fee calculated on the working capital or the working turnover. About 15 Co-operative Societies like Students co-operative Societies, Medical Aid Co-operative Societies, Sports promotion Co-operative Societies etc. , are exempted from payment of audit fee". In view of the above Division Bench decision of this Court, which is binding, Point (b) has to be answered against the petitioners. That apart, the learned Government Pleader has produced Annexures-R1 to r3 which are the Rules prevalent in other States levying audit fee on turnover or Working Capital, as the case may be. Hence, the petitioners cannot have any grievance in this regard. ( 11 ) POINT (c ).-According to the petitioners, the audit fee payable shall be co-related to the services rendered. Mr. KM. Nataraj, learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners relied upon the following decisions in support of the contention Commissioner, Hindu, Religious endowments. Madras v Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri shirur Mutt , Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Haldwani v Orient Paper and Industries Limited , (1997)2 SCC 715 and Government of Andhra pradesh and Another v Hindustan Machine Tools Limited. This contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted. The Division Bench in the aforementioned decision has not favoured with the same contention. The element of QUID PRO QUO is not always a SINE QUA NON. The element of QUID PRO QUO is not necessarily to be established with arithmetic exactitude is the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in catena of cases. Mr. Keshava Reddy, learned High Court Government Pleader has rightly relied upon the following decisions: sudhindra Thirtha Swamiar and Others v Commissioner for hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Mysore and another; delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited v Chief commissioner, Delhi and Others; sri Swamiji of Shri Admar Mutt v Commissioner of Hindu religious and Charitable Endowments Department and Others; municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others v Mohd. Yasin; sreenivasa General Traders and Others v State of Andhra pradesh and Others ; m/s. Kishan Lal Lakhmi Chand and Others v State of Haryana and Others; arya Vysya Srirama Co-operative Society Limited, Shimoga and Others v State of Karnataka and Others. ( 12 ) THE auditing of the Co-operative Banks and Societies are conducted by the Audit Department. Entrustment of audit work to chartered Accountants was found with red signal. The highlights of the same are reflected in the brochure called "an argument in favour of retaining the present system of State Audit of the Co-operative institutions and not to entrust the audit of these Co-operatives to the chartered Accountants" published by the Department of Co-operation. ( 13 ) THERE are more than 30,000 Co-operative Banks and Societies in the State. To conduct audit of these Co-operative Institutions a separate audit Department is established. It consists of several officers and staff members to effectively conduct Audit work in the Co-operative Banks and Societies in the State. The Department has to provide and maintain vast infrastructure facilities for this purpose apart from payment of salaries and other allowances payable to the staff with periodical pay revision on the basis of recommendations made by the Pay commissions. In order to maintain the department by itself, the audit fee cannot be levied exactly proportionate to the services rendered by the auditing staff That apart, as a social measure, several Co-operative societies and Institutions such as Student's Co-operative Societies, sc/sts Co-operative Societies, Medical Aid Co-operative Societies, primary Fisherman's Co-operative Societies, Ghone Oilman's co-operative Societies, Pottery Co-operative Societies, Leather Work's co-operative Societies, Mat Weaver's Co-operative Societies, Basket maker's Co-operative Societies, Hand Punding Co-operative Societies, labour Contract Co-operative Societies, Women Co-operative Societies (including Women's Co-operative Banks), Sports Promotion Co-operative societies, Co-operative Societies under Liquidation, Co-operative societies which are defunct/dormant, Co-operative Societies whose members are only Ex-Servicemen working for their welfare, co-operative Hospitals, Washermen's Co-operative Societies, stonecutter's Co-operative Societies and Barber's Co-operative Societies, are exempted from payment of audit fee to the Audit Department for doing the audit work. The cost of auditing of the above Societies and banks shall be borne by the Department and for that purpose it cannot levy and collect the audit fee from the other Co-operative Banks and societies, including petitioners-Societies and Banks as per the mathematical calculations. The cost of auditing of the above Societies and banks shall be borne by the Department and for that purpose it cannot levy and collect the audit fee from the other Co-operative Banks and societies, including petitioners-Societies and Banks as per the mathematical calculations. ( 14 ) IN the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India at page 106 it is stated that while revising the audit fee, the Department felt.-"though the responsibility of promotion of the Co-operative movement rests with the State Government the services of the co-operative Audit Department cannot entirely be taken as a social service. It may not be possible to completely bridge the gap between revenue and expenditure of this department, but there are sufficient grounds justifying the narrowing of this bridge. The principle underlying the provision of the audit service to the Co-operatives is that the audit should subsist on its own without being a burden to the State exchequer. The excess of expenditure over the demands for audit fees (including audit cost) raised during the years 1992-93 to 1996-97 ranged from Rs. 156. 78 lakhs to Rs. 248. 82 lakhs. A system of periodical review of the rate structure of audit fees was not in vogue in the department as a result even after revisions of pay scales of staff in 1987 and 1994, the revision of rates of fees has not even been considered by the Government after 1986". Again, at page 107 observation is made to the following effect.-" (iv) Short levy of audit fees: audit fee recoverable from Societies is a fixed percentage of their turnover or working capital whichever is higher. It was noticed that there was short levy of audit fees of Rs. 13. 67 lakhs in respect of 14 Societies on account of incorrect computation of turnover for the years 1992-93 to 1996-97. The Director of co-operative Audit stated (August 1998) that action would be taken to verify the levy of audit fees and omissions rectified". Annexure-R4 produced by the learned Government Pleader reveals the actual expenditure incurred by the Department for audit. When a comparison of the same is made with the demands shown therein, there is a huge deficit. The Director of co-operative Audit stated (August 1998) that action would be taken to verify the levy of audit fees and omissions rectified". Annexure-R4 produced by the learned Government Pleader reveals the actual expenditure incurred by the Department for audit. When a comparison of the same is made with the demands shown therein, there is a huge deficit. Thus, if these factors and the deficiency in the audit fee revenue are taken into consideration, the petitioners' contention that the audit fee should be levied and collected in co-relation to the services rendered by the Audit Department, has no merit and the contention is wholly untenable in law. In this view of the matter, Point (c) is answered in the negative. The decisions relied upon by Mr. KM. Nataraj are not helpful to the petitioners. ( 15 ) POINT (d ).-The question is, whether the impugned action amounts to sub-delegation of power? Mr. KM. Nataraj contended that the, impugned action amounts sub-delegation of power placing reliance on the following decisions.- vasanlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala and Another v State of Bombay; m/s. Devi Das Gopal Krishnan v State of Punjab and Others; air India v Nergesh Meerza and Others. Per contra, Mr. Keshava Reddy, learned Additional Government advocate pressed into service the decisions reported in: m/s. Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited v Workmen of M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited and Others; harishankar Bagla and Another v State of Madhya Pradesh; municipal Corporation of Delhi v Birla Cotton Spinning and weaving Mills, Delhi and Another; corporation of Calcutta and Another v Liberty Cinema; barium Chemicals Limited and Another v Company Law board and Others; darshan Lai Mehra and Others v Union of India and Others; pandit Banarsi Das Bhanot v State of Madhya Pradesh and others; 1995 (1) Scale 758 ; (1980) 1 SCC 641 (sic); and n. K. Papiah and Sons v Excise Commissioner and Another. The straight answer to the contention is in the negative. The reasons as signed to Point (a) holds good as the impugned action is in accordance with Section 129 of the Act read with Rule 30 of the Rules. Under ection 129 (2) (y) of the Act the State Government has got power to make Rules for fixing Audit fee to the Co-operative Banks and Societies in the State for doing Audit Work by the Department. Under ection 129 (2) (y) of the Act the State Government has got power to make Rules for fixing Audit fee to the Co-operative Banks and Societies in the State for doing Audit Work by the Department. Rule 30 (1) of the rules framed by the State Government empowers the Director of Co- operative Audit to fix the scale of audit fee with the prior approval of the state Government. That is what precisely done. Hence, the impugned action will not amount to sub-delegation of power. The power is exercised by the Director of Co-operative Audit by collecting the relevant material and data with relating to the volume of audit work involved in the Banks and Societies. Based on such material proposal was sent to the State Government for approval. The State Government in exercising the powers rested with it by applying its mind to the relevant material and data collected by the Director granted approval. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is sub-delegation of power. In view of the fact that there is no sub-delegation of power, the decisions relied upon on by both sides have no relevance to the case. ( 16 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the various decisions pressed into service by the learned Counsel for the petitioners will not render any assistance to the petitioners and the contentions urged does not hold water. Petitioners must be content with non-revision of audit fee for more than a decade. They had the benefit of such non-revision all these years and the burden of such expenditure is borne by the State government by spending public money for this purpose. ( 17 ) WRIT petitions are dismissed. --- *** --- .