ORDER 1. Challenge in this petition is to the resolution (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 - District Animal Welfare Committee, Raigarh by which respondent No.3 has been directed and authorized for effecting recovery of Rs. 10/- per animal as animal welfare fee for the purpose of welfare of animals. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that animal registration fee has already been fixed by Nagar Panchayat, Sarangarh under the Municipalities Act under which different rates have been prescribed for different categories of animals. He submits that in case of sale of any such animal the fee prescribed by Nagar Panchayat has to be paid by the purchaser. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the so-called District Animal Welfare Committee has absolutely no right to charge any animal welfare fee because the same has not been prescribed in the Municipalities Act. He submits that so-called Animal Welfare Committee is not empowered to impose any such fee without there being any legislative mandate. Resolution passed by the said Committee, according to the counsel for the petitioner, is not in consonance with the provisions of law and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. 3. Counsel for the respondents/State submits that P4rsuant to the policy decision taken by the then State of Madhya Pradesh dated 11.2.1999 (Annexure R-1/1) all the respective Collectors of the State were asked to constitute Rogi Pashu Kalyan Samiti for the purpose of welfare of cattle/animals and thereby indirectly helping the poor persons. He submits that a proforma has also been provided by the State Government for the purpose of registration of Societies in respective districts pursuant to which for Raigarh district such committee was formed and registered on 12.5.2000. Specific bylaws of the committee vide Annexure R-1/3 were also framed wherein very wide powers have been given to the committee in respect of taking decision for the welfare of animals. He submits that from a bare reading of the object of the committee it is revealed that the same is only in the interest of animals and thereby indirectly benefiting the villagers. State counsel submits that the committee is headed by Collector who is ex-officio Director of the Committee and all other senior officers of the district are the members of said Committee. State counsel submits that the committee is headed by Collector who is ex-officio Director of the Committee and all other senior officers of the district are the members of said Committee. He submits that the bylaws of the Society have empowered the Society to take any such decision in the interest of animals and for this purpose only a resolution was passed to charge Rs. 10/- towards animal welfare fee in respect of sale transaction of each animal. He submits that very meager animal welfare fee is being charged and therefore it should not be objected to by the petitioner as it will enable the Society to administer its duty and pious object framed by the Government. In addition to supporting the submissions of the State Government, it has been argued by counsel for respondent No.3 that respondent No.3 is merely a collecting agency of the Society and it is only implementing the resolution passed by the Committee. 4. The questions involved in the present writ petition may be formulated thus: (1) Whether animal welfare fee can be levied and collected without any statutory support? (II) Whether the Committee can ask the Municipalities & Gram Panchayat to recover animal welfare fee from the owner of the cattle for and on behalf of the Pashu Kalyan Samiti? 5. In the present case, the Animal Welfare Society has been constituted, in pursuance of the direction issued by the State and registered under the Society Registration Act, 1973 as a society and all the members of the Society are government officers and by virtue of their post they are ex-officio members and office bearers of the Society. 6. It is neither the case of the Society nor of the Government that Society is being constituted under any of the statutory provisions. Decision to constitute Jila Pashu Kalyan Samiti is not the decision of the Governor of the State and therefore it cannot be said that the decision is under Article 166 (3) of the Constitution of India. It is a settled position of law that fee can be charged only when there is legislative competence and legislative sanction. In seventh schedule of the Constitution, there is only one entry in each list permitting law making by the legislature for levy of fee, namely:- 96. Fees in respect of any of the matters in this list, but not including fees taken in any Court. In seventh schedule of the Constitution, there is only one entry in each list permitting law making by the legislature for levy of fee, namely:- 96. Fees in respect of any of the matters in this list, but not including fees taken in any Court. (seventh schedule (Article 246) List I - Union List) 66. Fees in respect of any of the matters in this list, put not including fees taken in any Court. (List II, - State list) 47. Fees in respect of any of the matters in this list, but not including, fees taken in any Court. (List III - concurrent list). 7. It is further a settled position of law that tax or fee could be levied in accordance with law if permissible but not the administrative charges by exercising a power conferred by the control order. In the State of Kerla Vs. K.P. Govindan, Tapioca Exporter, (1975)1 SCC 281 , it has been held that administrative surcharges were sought to be levied under a Control Order issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It was held that such levy and realization were without the authority of law. A tax or fee, as advised, could be levied in accordance with law if permissible, but not the administrative charges, by exercising a power conferred by the Control Order. 8. Any tax or fee for levy, for the matter of that, must satisfy the requirement of Article 265 of the Constitution apart from the legislative competence: If the State Government undertakes to ensure distribution and availability of an essential commodity by public distribution system, it has to provide for a system and make the commodity available. Provision has to be made for maintaining the system independent of the price of the essential commodity sought to be distributed. Any tax or fee or levy, for the matter of that, must satisfy the requirement of Article 265 of the Constitution apart from the legislative competence. 9. Admittedly, animal welfare fee is not being charged under any of the provisions of the Municipalities Act and the same is being charged on the basis of policy decision taken by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. Mere passing of resolution by the Society does not empower the respondents to charge any such amount. 10. 9. Admittedly, animal welfare fee is not being charged under any of the provisions of the Municipalities Act and the same is being charged on the basis of policy decision taken by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. Mere passing of resolution by the Society does not empower the respondents to charge any such amount. 10. Municipal councils and Gram Panchayats are constituted under Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act and Chhattisgarh Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1994 and also have constitutional support by the 73rd & 74th amendment of the Constitution. They are constituted on democratic basis. There is no provision in both the Acts that a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1993 can direct them to execute their decision. 11. Even under the bylaws, the Committee has not been empowered to impose levy of any such fee as has been done in the present case. Moreover, if the Committee wanted to achieve certain objects of the Society, it is the Government which has to make an effort to financially support Pashu Kalyan Samiti for the welfare of animals. In the case in hand, though the object of the Society is to administer the welfare of animals, to achieve the said object the Committee is indirectly taxing/troubling the local residents who wish to deal with the sale and purchase of animals. 12. Tax is a compulsory extraction of money by a public authority for, public service enforceable by law and is not payment for service rendered. A fee is levied essentially for services rendered. However, tax and fee both are compulsory extraction of money by public authority. Fee can be levied only when there is legislative competence of the legislature as per distribution of legislative power and there must be a valid law. 13. The Director and the Collector and the executive wing of the State, what they have done is to develop a local administration, levy charges for developing a fund at their own level, administered by them for running a department or system of governance. Such collection and fund has no sanctity in law and is violation of Article 265 of the Constitution. Such collection and fund has no sanctity in law and is violation of Article 265 of the Constitution. Moreover, even if the Committee headed by the Collector and other Government officers is there, it is not empowered to direct and authorize the Municipalities and other, local bodies to recover any welfare fee from the owners of cattle in any such sale transaction for and on behalf of Pashu Kalyan Samiti. 14. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of the considered opinion that the resolution (Annexure P-1) passed by the Animal Welfare Committee is without jurisdiction and has no legal sanctity. Moreover, the said resolution being un-executable cannot be allowed to stand. Resolution under challenge thus stands set aside. 15. Petition is thus allowed. Petition Allowed.