JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner M/s. Bharat Hotels Limited having their hotel known as Grand Laxmi Vilas Palace, at Udaipur within the State of Rajasthan being aggrieved by the order Annex.P-5 dated 16.10.2006 passed by the Commissioner of respondent-Municipal Council, Udaipur asking the petitioner-Company to (i) obtain no objection for raising construction from the Pollution Control Board of Rajasthan, and (ii) deposit a sum of Rs. 93,95,417/- as environment charges for the said permission to raise construction. 2. The petitioner-Company has challenged only the second part of the aforesaid impugned order dated 16.10.2006 and the said demand reiterated by subsequent order dated 24.9.2009 (Annex.P-8) to the extent of demand of aforesaid fees charged C@@ Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. for total area of the land belonging to the petitioner-Company under the "Controlled Construction Region, Building Regulations, 2000" (hereinafter referred to as CCRBR, 2000). 3. Mr. P.P. Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner-Company raised the following contentions : (i) The CCRBR, 2000 have not yet been notified by the State Government and therefore, as per Section 75(2) of the Urban improvement Trust Act, 1959, the sad Regulations CCRBR, 2000 cannot be said to have come into force and therefore, levy of environment fee at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. could not be demanded by the respondent- Municipal Council, Udaipur. (ii) Since permission for construction was sought by the petitioner only for raising construction of 13643.46 sq. ft. for construction of new swimming pool and new garage to meet the demand of tourists and guests staying in the hotel of the petitioner-Company, therefore, the said demand of Rs. 93,95,417/- for the entire land belonging to the petitioner-Company ad-measuring 21.576 acres = 87318 sq. meter or 939883.12 sq. ft. cannot be demanded by the respondent-Municipal Council. (iii) The applicable law to the petitioner in the present matter for grant of permission to raise construction is "Urban Region, Building Regulations, 2000" (hereinafter referred to as URBR, 2000), which is notified Regulation and not the CCRBR, 2000, which is not yet notified and as per the said URBR, 2000, the environment fee which can be demanded by the respondent-Municipal Council is only Rs. 125/- per sq. meter of the constructed portion as per Clause 2(c) in para 5 of the Schedule of charges under URBR, 2000 and not at the rate of Rs. 125/- per sq. meter of the constructed portion as per Clause 2(c) in para 5 of the Schedule of charges under URBR, 2000 and not at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. under the CCRBR, 2000 as per clause 6(vi)(4) for commercial plots of land. (iv) Vide letter dated 22.5.2000 of the Dy. Secretary (I), Mr. Shri Ram Meena addressed to the Secretary, UIT, Udaipur, in which certain amendments were suggested by him in the Regulations for construction in Controlled Construction Zone Regulations, 1999, it is clearly stipulated that vide notification dated 10.12.1999 issued for permission for construction in the controlled construction area, the said Regulations with suggested amendments were being approved. However, since the Regulations CCRBR, 2000 with amendments as suggested have not yet been notified, even after a lapse of 10 years from the year 2000, the respondent-Municipal Council acting under these Regulations cannot demand such environment fee at the rate of Z10/- per sq. ft. (v) The hotel building does not fall within the "No Construction Zone" notified for Udaipur as per notification dated 10.12.2009 and therefore the said CCRBR, 2000 cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner. (vi) In the alternative, the petitioner also contended that even if un-notified Regulations CCRB, 2000 are held applicable to the case of the petitioner, the environment fee as the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. cannot be demanded for the entire area of the land owned and possessed by it, but only for the area in which actual construction is being raised, such fee can be demanded. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Company Mr. P.P. Choudhary, therefore, urged that levy of environment fee demanded by the respondent-Municipal Council is violative of Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India and therefore, impugned order to the extent of such demand dated 16.10.2006 cannot be sustained. 4. Mr. Anand Purohit, Sr. Advocate and Addl. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Company Mr. P.P. Choudhary, therefore, urged that levy of environment fee demanded by the respondent-Municipal Council is violative of Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India and therefore, impugned order to the extent of such demand dated 16.10.2006 cannot be sustained. 4. Mr. Anand Purohit, Sr. Advocate and Addl. Advocate General on behalf of the State candidly and clearly submitted that although the aforesaid Regulations CCRBR, 2000 have not yet been notified by the State Government and the State Government is taking steps for expeditious publication of these Regulations, but such levy of environment fee is justified because such fee is charged for protection of lakes in the City of Lakes, namely, Udaipur within the State of Rajasthan as per various directions of this Court in PIL jurisdiction also and even otherwise, since it is the responsibility of the State to protect these lakes, for development of the same, such environment fee as imposed under the new Regulations of CCRBR, 2000 has been rightly demanded by the Municipal Council, Udaipur. The learned AAG, therefore, justified the impugned order. 5. Mr. Shushan Singh Charan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Municipal Council, Udaipur raised the following preliminary objections : (i) The writ petition filed by the petitioner in this Court on 19.11.2009 after 3 years of passing of the order by the Commissioner of Municipal Council, Udaipur vide Annex.P-5 dated 16.10.2006 suffers from the vice of delay and lathes on the part of the petitioner and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. (ii) It was also contended that since the matter relating to the amendment and approval in the Regulations of 2000, namely, CCRBR, 2000 for grant of permission for raising construction in the controlled areas was pending before the State Government, therefore, filing of the writ petition in the present matter was premature. Such pendency was clear from the letter Annex. P-7 dated 3.8.2009 of the Special Assistant of the Local Self Government Department, Jaipur addressed to the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Udaipur and comments thereon sent by the Municipal Council, Udaipur vide its letter dated 24.9.2009 (Annex.P-8), which is also under challenge in this writ petition. (iii) The said levy of environment fee at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. (iii) The said levy of environment fee at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. was Justified as per clause 6(b) of the CCRBR, 2000 for protection of lakes in Udaipur and since permission was granted to the petitioner-Company vide Annex.P-5 dated 16.10.2006 under these very Regulations, namely, CCRBR, 2000, therefore, levy of environment fee prescribed in these very Regulations at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. could be demanded from the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that these Regulations were not yet notified and published in the Gazette. (iv) The learned counsel for the respondent-Municipal Council, Udaipur Mr. Bhushan Singh Charan also urged that the present writ petition involved disputed questions of facts as to whether the construction of the petitioner-Company or even part thereof fell within the "No Construction Zone" or not and according to the respondent-Municipal Council since it fell within the "No Construction Zone" as notified by the State Government vide notification dated 10.12.1999, whereas the petitioner was contending otherwise, such disputed questions of facts could not be gone into in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable. (v) The learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. B.S. Charan also relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of M/s. Bejgam Veeranna Venkata Narasimloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., reported in 1998 DNJ (SC) 112 (para 14) to support his contention. in the case of Bejgam Veeranna Venkata Narasimloo (supra), the State Government claimed before the Court that excess payment had been made to rice millers in pursuance of notification dated 2.11.1976 and same deserves to be recovered back from them. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in para 14 that Distt. Collectors had acted on the basis of this Memorandum dated 2.11.1976 and rice millers were compelled to sell rice to FCI and therefore, in these circumstances, it was not open to the State Government to contend that the Memorandum was not notified and therefore, no right or obligation flowed from that Memorandum. Collectors had acted on the basis of this Memorandum dated 2.11.1976 and rice millers were compelled to sell rice to FCI and therefore, in these circumstances, it was not open to the State Government to contend that the Memorandum was not notified and therefore, no right or obligation flowed from that Memorandum. If the Memorandum was required to be notified, the Government cannot take advantage of its failure to notify it and having acted on the basis of un-notified Memorandum and having collected rice compulsorily from the mills on the strength of this Memorandum and also having paid the millers at the rate fixed by the Memorandum, the Government cannot be heard to say that the Memorandum is of no legal effect and the payment was made under mistake of law. The Hon'ble Apex Court proceeded to hold that it will be inequitable to permit the Government to take the plea of irregularity of its own order after procuring rice on the basis of that order. (vi) Drawing the attention of the Court towards para 23 of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in PIL jurisdiction in the case of Rajendra Kumar Razdan v. State of Rajasthan, DBCWP No. 4271/1999 decided on 6.2.2007 , the learned counsel for the respondent-Municipal Corporation urged that the Court had imposed complete ban on 8.5.2000 on any kind of construction of any sort of building, house or commercial premises in the "No Construction Zone" in Udaipur and later on a clarification was made in another decision in the case of E.T.H. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2001 (2) WLC (Raj.) 249 . Vide para 24 of the said decision, it was noted by this Court that : "the U.I.T. has filed an affidavit stating that the directions of this Court in that regard have been faithfully and punctually complied with inasmuch as no construction has been permitted in the No Construction. Zone in disregard to the orders of this Court. In certain cases, permissions have been granted only in accordance with the bye-laws and the law laid down by this Court in E.T.H. Ltd.'s case (supra)." The learned counsel for the respondent-Municipal Council therefore, submitted that even though un-notified Regulations CCRBR, 2000 was applied in all such cases for grant of permission to raise construction and therefore, environment fee demanded by the respondent-Municipal Council at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. was justified. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. In rejoinder, Mr. P.P. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner rebutting the preliminary objections raised by the Municipal Council, Udaipur submitted that firstly there was no delay in filing the writ petition as the petitioner-Company had been pursuing its case for grant of permission right from the year 2005 at various levels in the State Government and as would be clear from the letter Ex.P-7 dated 3.8.2009 of the Special Assistant of the Local Self Department that the State Government had asked for certain clarifications from the Municipal Council, Udaipur and in pursuance of this, letter Annex.P-8 dated 24.9.2009 was sent by the Municipal Council to the Special Assistant, Local Self Department, therefore, the present writ petition filed in the month of November, 2009 after two months cannot be said to be suffering from any delay and laches and the order dated 16.10.2006 being exfacie illegal and unfounded deserves to be quashed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the Municipal Council has wrongly canvassed before this Court that the matter regarding approval of the CCRBR, 2000 was pending with the State Government as would be clear from the letter dated 22.5.2000 of Shri Ram Meena, Dy. Secretary (I), Local Self Department, though which is not on the record, but was produced before this Court along with the compilation of the aforesaid Regulations, that the said Regulations CCRBR, 2000 had been approved with certain suggested amendments. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since these Regulations viz. CCRBR, 2000 were admittedly never notified so far by the State Government and which fact is not in dispute from the side of the respondents, therefore, the writ petition cannot be said to be premature. He also urged that there are no disputed questions of facts and the respondent-Municipal Council was illegally demanding high amount of environment fee to the tune of 293,95,417/- from the petitioner even though the construction sought to be raised was in a small area of about 13,000 sq. ft. only and that too for renovation of swimming pool and parking area and the respondent-Municipal Council was only trying to stall such development work by making such illegal huge demand. ft. only and that too for renovation of swimming pool and parking area and the respondent-Municipal Council was only trying to stall such development work by making such illegal huge demand. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that as far as permission from the Pollution Control Board is concerned that the petitioner would obtain once the issue relating to environment fee is settled. He also submitted that it was neither necessary to implead Rajasthan Pollution Control Board or UIT as party respondent in the present writ petition as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-Municipal Council since the impugned demand has been raised by the respondent No. 2 Municipal Council only. 8. I have heard the learned counsels at length and perused the relevant record and case laws relied upon by the learned counsels for both the sides. 9. It is trite law that no tax or fee under a statute can be imposed, demanded and recovered without the concerned statute acquiring the shape of law by duly notified and published legislation. In view of the admission of the respondent- State and the Municipal Council that the aforesaid Regulations CCRBR, 2000 have not yet been notified by the State, there is considerable force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that levy of environment fee at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. under un-notified Regulations, namely, CCRBR, 2000 could not be validly demanded by the respondent-Municipal Council, Udaipur. The situation in regard to these Regulations has been in fluid state right from the year 2000, though it has taken considerable long period for the respondent-State to notify the new Regulations viz. CCRBR, 2000 for granting permission in "No Construction Zone", but it seems from the documents placed on record before this Court like Annex.P-7 letter dated 3.8.2009 of the Special Assistant of Local Self Department to the Municipal Council, Udaipur by which comments were sought from the Municipal Council about the levy under these Regulations and the respondent-Municipal Council vide its letter dated 24.9.2009 (Annex.P-8) not only referred to these Regulations CCRBR, 2000, but also to URBR, 2000 which is a notified statute. Therefore, it appears that the respondent-Municipal Council itself is not clear as to which of these two Regulations URBR, 2000 or CCRBR, 2000 will apply to the case of the present petitioner-Company. Therefore, it appears that the respondent-Municipal Council itself is not clear as to which of these two Regulations URBR, 2000 or CCRBR, 2000 will apply to the case of the present petitioner-Company. While under the URBR, 2000 much lesser rate of environment fee is prescribed @ Rs. 125/- per sq. meter of actual area of construction, under the un-notified Regulations CCRBR, 2000, such environment fee is to be levied @aI Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. for the entire area owned and possessed by the appellant. Whether such lev\for the entire area owned and possessed by the concerned applicant is justified or only for actual area of construction is also an issue which was raised by the letter dated 3.8.2009 (Annex.P-7) of the Special Assistant of Local Sq. ft. Government Department. There is no clear answer to this in the CCRBR, 2000. Even though the said Regulations CCRBR, 2000 refers to rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. of the local area of the plot of land, but the impugned order Annex.P-5 dated 16.10.2006 is silent about this aspect of the matter. The said communication (Annex.P-5) even otherwise appears to be a non-speaking order as simply in para 2 of the said order, the Commissioner of Municipal Council, Udaipur has demanded a sum of Rs. 93,95,417/- from the petitioner without giving any details as to how and on what basis said figure has been arrived at and it is only from the letter of the petitioner itself vide Annex.P-6 dated 19.2.2007 that a little clarification about this amount can be inferred that this fees is charged at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. for the entire area owned and possessed by the petitioner, namely 21.76 acres = 87318 sq. meter or 939883.12 sq. ft. While such huge demand of environment fee was imposed on the petitioner-Company, it was incumbent upon the Commissioner of the Municipal Council to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and determine such amount of environment fee to be levied upon it for grant of permission to raise construction and during such process of hearing only, the petitioner-Company could raise all its contentions which are now raised before this Court before the said Authority who was required to determine and adjudicate upon the said objections viz. as to the quantum of fees, need of publication of statute, whether such fee will be with reference to only actual constructed area or for complete area owned and possessed and whether the petitioner-Hotel falls within "No Construction Zone" or not. Unfortunately, the impugned order Annex.P-5 dated 16.10.2006 appears to have been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Company nor tenor of said communication takes it within the parameters of proper adjudicatory order. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Govind Saran Ganga Saran v. Commissioner of Sales Tax and Ors., reported in 1985 SC 1041 laid down in para 6 that following four components enter into the concept of levy a tax and any uncertainty or vagueness in the legislative scheme defining any of these components will be fatal to its validity. In para 6 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "6. The components which enter into the concept of a tax are well known. The first is the character of the imposition known by its nature which prescribes the taxable event attracting the levy, the second is a clear indication of the person on whom the levy is imposed and who is obliged to pay the tax, the third is the rate at which the tax is imposed, and the fourth is the measure or value to which the rate will be applied for computing the tax liability. If those components are not clearly and definitely ascertainable, it is difficult to say that the levy exists in point of law. Any uncertainty or vagueness in the legislative scheme damning any of those components of the levy will be fatal to its validity." 11. Emphasising the need to notify the said law to specify single point taxation for levy of sales tax in a series of sales, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 10 further observed as under : "We are of opinion that there is ample power under Section 5A of the State Act enabling the Chief Commissioner to specify the single point at which tax may be levied in a series of sales. This can, however, be done by him only by a notification in the Official Gazette. No such not cation has been placed before us which could relate to the assessment year under consideration. This can, however, be done by him only by a notification in the Official Gazette. No such not cation has been placed before us which could relate to the assessment year under consideration. We hold therefore that a vital prerequisite of Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, namely, that the tax shall not be levied at more than one stage, has not been satisfied in respect of the turnover of cotton yarn, and accordingly the assessment complained of is liable to be quashed." 12. In view of the aforesaid legal position and factual matrix, this Court considers is expedient to relegate the matter back to the respondent-Municipal Council, Udaipur for deciding the application of the petitioner-Company for seeking permission to raise construction again after affording a proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Company. This Court would not like to express any opinion on the merits of the contentions raised by both the parties before this Court lest it affects the decision of appropriate adjudicating authority of the respondent-Municipal Council, otherwise. 13. Consequently, this writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned part of the communication Annex.P-5 did. 16.10.2006 to the extent it demands environment fee of Rs. 93,95,417/- from the petitioner-Company is quashed and set aside and the respondent-Municipal Council is directed to decide the application of the petitioner-Company afresh preferably within a period of 3 months from today after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Company. The petitioner may appear before the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Udaipur in the first instance on 14.2.2011. it is also made clear that under the interim order dated 3.5.2010 of this Court in the present writ petition, if the petitioner Company had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as environment fee, the same will remain subject to final decision of this issue by the respondent- Municipal Council, Udaipur. No order as to costs.Petition partly allowed. *******