Petition Nos
528 529 1645 288293 362363 374 388 404 406 510 512 14 644 46 647 663 65 707 710 720 to 722 7457931037 of 1979341 43344 47 52575195293 3531 35 4322 of 1980 4824 4825 5246 3236 29633472 743415 17 3420 1363 65 1327 28 1337 41 4101 2 53264949 50 of 1981 and 311 of 1982
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India GL Sanghi Dr LM Singhvi SN Kacker Yogeshwar Prasad Ashok Grover VN Koura SC Budhwar LK Pandey Ravindra Narain DN Mishra P Krishna Rao KR Nagaraja Miss Kamini Jaiswal and Mrs Rani Chhabra for the appearing Petitioners
LN Sinha Attorney General SC Maheshwari Additional Advocate General OP Malhotra G N Dikshit HR Bhardwaj BP Maheshwari Suresh Sethi Miss Asha Rani Jain and Pravir Choudhary for the appearing Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by TULZAPURKAR J
There is no substance in this group of writ petitions filed under article 32 of the Constitution whereby the petitioners who carry on business inter alia of the wholesale vend of beer and Indian Made Foreign Liquor at various places in the State of UP on the strength of licences granted to them in Form FL 2 under the UP Excise Act 1910 have challenged the constitutional validity of sections 12 3 and 5 of UP Excise Amendment ordinance No 4 of 1979 as also the constitutional validity of sections 12 3 and 5 of UP Excise Amendment Act No 13 of 1979 which replaced the said ordinance No 4 of 1979 as being violative of their fundamental rights under articles 14 19 and 31 of the Constitution the petitioners have also sought a declaration that section 302 proviso to cl
c of section 41 and Explanations I and II to cl
c of section 41 of the UP Excise Act 1910 as amended by sections 3 and 5 of the said ordinance No 4 of 1979 as well as by sections 3 and 5 of the said Act No 13 of 1979 and the provisions of sub section
2 of section 1 of the said ordinance No 4 of 1979 as well as of the said Act No 13 of 1979 are ultra vires the Constitution and have prayed for the issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction restraining the respondents the State of UP the Excise Commissioner and other officers either directly or through their agents servants or otherwise from giving effect to the amended provision
759 It may be stated that the aforesaid challenge to the UP Ordinance No 4 of 1979 the UP Act No 13 of 1979 and the concerned amended provisions of the UP Excise Act 1910 has been made solely with a view to avoid the payment of the assessed fee which the respondents are seeking to recover from the petitioners in addition to the fixed fee auction money as and by way of consideration for the grant of licences in Form FL 2 for the wholesale vend of beer and Indian Made Foreign Liquor
However as it became clear during the hearing that even without the amendments affected in the UP Excise Act 1910 being the Principal Act by the said ordinance No 4 of 1979 and by the said Act No 13 of 1979 the assessed fee in addition to the fixed fee auction money could be and was being recovered under the Principal Act of 1910 as amended by the UP Amending Reenactment and Validation Act 5 of 1976 and the Rules framed thereunder the aforesaid challenge was given up and no arguments in support thereof were at all advanced by any of the counsel for the petitioners and the contentions centered round the question whether such assessed fee in addition to the fixed fee auction money could be levied and recovered under the Principal Act of 1910 as amended by the Act 5 of 1976
It was not disputed before us that the grant of exclusive privilege of manufacture supply or sale by wholesale or by retail of liquor was always governed by the provisions of the Principal Act of 1910 and the Rules framed thereunder and that licences for wholesale vend of beer and Indian Made Foreign Liquor were granted in Form FL 2 which contained the terms and conditions on which sales by wholesale of the said commodities could be effected by the grantees thereof
It appears that prior to April 1976 these FL 2 licences were not settled under any auction system but were renewable from year to year and the licence fee was based on the quantity of beer and Indian Made Foreign Liquor actually sold from the concerned shop and was assessed and charged at the rate of Rs 5 per quart bottle on spirits and 60 p per quart bottle on beers
But from April 1976 auction system was introduced whereunder FL 2 licences were auctioned under the provisions of paragraph 373 of the UP excise Manual Vol
I and fixed free
being the highest bid auction money accepted at such auction came to be charged for the grant of FL 2 licences and this system was introduced on the strength of the amendments that were made in the Principal Act of 1910 by the Amending Re enactment and 760 Validation Act 5 of 1976
Three or four amendments made by Act 5 of 1976 are material and we shall refer to these presently A new section 24A dealing with the grant of exclusive or other privilege in respect of foreign liquor was introduced in the Principal Act which reads as under 24 A Grant of exclusive or other privilege in respect of foreign liquor
1 Subject to the provisions of Section 31 the Excise Commissioner may grant to any person a licence or licences for the exclusive or other privilege a of manufacturing or of supply by wholesale or of both or b of manufacturing or of supplying by wholesale or of both and selling by retail or c of selling by wholesale to wholesale or retail vendors or d of selling by retail at shops for consumption off  the premises any foreign liquor in any locality
2 The grant of licence or licences under clause d of sub section 1 in relation to any locality shall be without prejudice to the grant of licences for the retail sale of foreign liquor in the same locality in hotels and restaurants for consumption in their premises
3 Where more licences than one are proposed to be granted under clause d of sub section 1 in relation to any locality for the same period advance intimation of the proposal shall be given to the prospective applicants for every such licence
4 The provisions of Section 25 and proviso to Section 39 shall apply in relation to grant of a licence for an exclusive or other privilege under this section as they apply in respect of the grant of a licence for an exclusive privilege under Section 24 761 Section 24 B which was also introduced by Act 5 of 1976 in the Principal Act reads thus 24 B Removal of doubts For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared a that the State Government has an exclusive right or privilege of manufacture and sale of country liquor and foreign liquor b that the amount described as licence fee in clause c of Section 41 is in its essence the rental or consideration for the grant of such right or privilege by the State Government c that the Excise Commissioner as the head of the Excise Department of the State shall be deemed while determining or realising such fee to act for and on behalf of the State Government
 By the same Act section 30 of the Principal Act was amended and the amended section 30 read thus 30
1 Instead of or in addition to any duty leviable under the Chapter the State Government or on its behalf the Excise Commissioner may accept payment of a sum in consideration of the grant of licence for any exclusive or other privilege under section 24 or Section 24 A 2 The sum payable under sub section 1 may be determined either by auction or by calling tenders or otherwise
 Section 41 of the Principal Act which confers power on the Excise Commissioner to make Rules subject to the previous sanction of the State Government touching the matters or topics specified therein was amended by Act 5 of 1976 by substituting cl
c thereby conferring power on the Excise Commissioner to frame Rules on the substituted matter or topic and the amended cl
c runs thus C Prescribing the scale of fees or manner of fixing the fees payable for any licence permit or pass including 762 any consideration for the grant of any exclusive or other privilege granted under Section 24 or Section 24 A or for storing of any intoxicant
 In exercise of the power so conferred upon him under the amended cl
c of section 41 the Excise Commissioner with the previous sanction of the State Government framed Rules called the UP Excise Wholesale and Retail Vend of Foreign Liquor 2nd Amendment Rules 1976 by issuing the Notification No 27Licence 3 dated 14th April 1976 which were brought into force with effect from the date of publication in the Gazette namely 14th April 1976 by this Notification the existing Rules 639 641 and 642 as appearing in Excise Manual Vol
I 1962 End were amended Rule 6392 as amended provides that licences in form FL 2 shall be settled by public auction while Rule 641 as amended provides that the fee for a licence in Form FL 2 shall be the amount of money accepted at the auction of the licence as fixed fee  together with an assessed fee  charged on the basis of the scales of surcharge fee prescribed in the next paragraph following and Rule 642 as amended runs thus 642
The scales of licence fee applicable to whole scale licences for the vend of foreign liquor shall be as follows i For a licence in Form FL1 ii For a licence in Form FL 2 The fixed fee obtained for the licence at the auction in addition to the assessed fees according to the following scales a Spirits Rs 500 per wines liquors reputed quart etc
of all bottle on sale kinds
to licensed vendors
b Beer Stout and Rs 060 per other fermented reputed quart liquors
bottle on sale to licensed vendors
Note The fixed fee in respect of licence FL 2 one fourth of the licence fee as obtained in the auction 763 shall be payable in advance immediately on the acceptance of the bid and the balance by such instalments as may be specified in the licence to be granted
 By the very notification dated 14th of April 1976 the Excise Commissioner added one more condition in the form of a proviso to the terms and conditions of FL 2 Licence and the said addition made after condition No 1 c runs thus Provided that the assessment fee on the sales made on the licence in the prescribed manner at such scales of surcharge fee as may be prescribed by the Government and announced at the time of the auction shall also be payable by the licencee Obviously relying upon the aforesaid amendments made in the Principal Act of 1910 by Act 5 of 1976 some of which were given retrospective effect from the date of the commencement of the Principal Act and others from 16th August 1972 and the said amended Rules 639 641 and 642 and the insertion of the new condition in the FL 2 Licence all of which came into force from 14th April 1976 the respondents introduced the auction system for the grant of licences in Form FL 2 for wholesale vend of beer and Indian Made Foreign Liquor and started levying and recovering the assessed fee in addition to the fixed fee auction money from the grantees of the licences
Question raised is whether such levy and recovery are legal and valid  Before we deal with the question it will be desirable to set out the facts giving rise to it that lie in a narrow compass and it will suffice if the facts obtaining in Writ Petition No 528 of 1979 being typically representative of the group are stated
The petitioners in that petition are liquor dealers and carry on business inter alia of wholesale vend of beer and Indian Made Foreign Liquor and for that purpose have wholesale depots in various districts in the State of UP
For the financial years 1976 77 and 1977 78 they acquired by auction bids wholesale vending rights in respect of Indian Made Foreign Liquor at Agra Meerut Varanasi Kanpur Bareilly and Dehradun for the financial year 1978 79 they similarly acquired wholesale vending rights in Indian Made Foreign Liquor at Agra Meerut and Varanasi and for the financial year 1979 80 they acquired by auction similar rights at Agra Meerut Ghaziabad 764 and Pilibhit
In other words being the highest bidder at these places for these years licences for the wholesale vend of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in Form FL 2 were granted to them
At the time of acceptance of their bids at these auctions the petitioners deposited the entire auction money called the fixed fee in respect of each of the said years with the respondents
The petitioners  case is that thereafter the respondents are seeking to levy and recover from them the assessed fee at the rate of Rs 5 per quart bottle on spirits and 60 p per quart bottle on beers actually sold during each of the financial years by their concerned shops or depots in addition the fixed fee
Such levy and recovery of the assessed fee by the respondents is challenged on two or three grounds indicated hereunder
In the first place Counsel for the petitioners have contended that under section 302 of the Principal Act of 1910 prior to its amendment by UP Ordinance No 4 of 1979 and UP Act 13 of 1979 it was open to the respondents to adopt either one or the other method of granting FL 2 licences and determine the licence fee payable by the grantee accordingly that is to say the respondents could grant the licence either by auction or by calling tenders and once a particular mode was adopted it was incumbent upon them to apply the same for the purpose of determining the sum payable by the grantee in other words the contention has been that it was not open to them to adopt a combination of two or more methods and claim assessed fee in addition to fixed fee and therefore the instant attempt on the part of the respondents to levy and recover the assessed fee in addition to fixed fee would be illegal and without authority of law
According to the petitioners a combination of two or more methods became available to the respondents only under sec
302 as amended by UP ordinance No 4 of 1979 and by UP Act 13 of 1979
Secondly the petitioners have averred that at the time of the said auctions held for each of the said financial years the bidders were not informed that any assessed fee had been fixed by the State Government which would be payable by the successful bidder and therefore the persons who gave their bids including the petitioners whose highest bids were accepted were led to believe that no fee over and above the auction money would be charged and that the successful bidder would be granted FL 2 licence merely on payment of the auction money
Counsel for the petitioners have therefore contended that the respondents  attempt to levy and recover the assessed fee over 765 and above the fixed fee auction money is unwarranted and illegal in as much as the respondents cannot enhance the petitioners  contractual liability which was limited to the payment of the auction money
Yet another contention raised by Counsel for the petitioners has been that as per the newly inserted condition in FL 2 licence the assessed fee was required to be prescribed by Government and announced at the time of auction but in the instant case such assessed fee has been prescribed by the Excise Commissioner and not by the State Government and was not announced at the time of the auction and for this reason also the same would not be recoverable
As will be shown presently none of these contentions has any merit and each one is liable to be rejected
As regards the first contention a plain reading of section 302 prior to its amendment by UP Ordinance No 4 of 1979 and by UP Act No 13 of 1979 will show that there is no substance in it
The said provision ran thus 2
The sum payable under sub sec
1 may by determined either by auction or by calling tenders or otherwise
 In other words the consideration for the grant of FL 2 licence could be determined either by auction or by calling tenders or otherwise
The phrase or otherwise was sufficiently wide and conferred on its plain grammatical construction power on the State Government or the Excise Commissioner to grant the licence either by auction or by tenders or partly by auction and partly by tenders or even by adopting yet other methods than by auction or by inviting tenders
In other words the phrase or otherwise enabled the State Government or the Excise Commissioner to adopt a combination of one or more methods for granting the FL 2 licence and determine the licence fee accordingly
Having regard to the phrase or otherwise occurring in the provision it is impossible to accept the contention that only one method to the exclusion of the others could be adopted by the respondents for granting the licence or that one type of fee appropriate to that method could alone be charged
It is true that sub sec
2 of section 30 as amended by UP Ordinance No 4 of 1979 or by UP Act No 13 of 1979 runs thus 2
The sum payable under sub sec
1 may either be fixed by auction or inviting tenders or otherwise or be assessed on the basis of the sales made or quota lifted 766 under the licence or partly fixed and partly assessed in the aforesaid manner
 But in our view it is manifestly clear that the aforesaid amended provision is clarificatory of the legal position which obtained under sec
302 that was operative prior to the said amendment
In this view of the matter the first contention has to be rejected
The second contention has been that since at the time of holding the concerned auctions the bidders were not informed that any assessed fee had been prescribed by the State Government which would be payable by the successful bidder and since bids were offered on the representation that the successful bidder would be granted FL 2 licence merely on payment of the fixed fee auction money the respondents  attempt to levy and recover the assessed fee over and above the fixed fee would be unwarranted and illegal because the respondents cannot enhance the contractual liability of the successful bidder which was limited to payment of the auction money
There are two answers to this contention
In the first place it was not disputed before us that to the knowledge of all the bidders these auctions for the grant of FL 2 licences were held under the provisions of the Principal Act of 1910 as amended by Act 5 of 1976 and the Rules framed thereunder which were then in force
We have already referred to the provisions of the amended Rules 6392 641 and 642 which were published in the Gazette and brought into force with effect from 14th of April 1976 and admittedly all auctions for the financial year 1976 77 were held subsequent to that date
Under the amended Rule 641 it was clearly provided that the fee for the FL 2 licence shall be the amount of money accepted at the auction of the licence as fixed fee together with the assessed fee charged on the basis of the scales of Surcharge fee prescribed in the next following Rule and the amended Rule 642 prescribed the scales at which the assessed fee would be so charged
In other words the bidders who gave their bids must be deemed to have knowledge of the provisions of the aforesaid Rules subject to which the auctions were held and therefore it is difficult to accept the contention that the bidders including the successful bidder whose highest bid was accepted offered their bids believing that only fixed fee would be charged
Secondly the averment of the petitioners that at the time of these auctions the bidders were not informed that any assessed fee had been fixed or prescribed which would be payable by the successful bidder is not quite correct
It has been admitted by the petitioners that at the time of these 767 auctions the new condition that was inserted by the Excise Commissioner in the FL 2 licence by his Notification dated 14th April 1976 was read out and this newly inserted condition runs thus Provided that the assessment fee on the sales made on the licence in the prescribed manner at such scales of surcharge fee as may be prescribed by the Government and announced at the time of the auction shall also be payable by licensee
If admittedly the aforesaid condition inserted in FL 2 licence was read out at the time of the auction then it is clear that the fact that assessed fee on the sales made on the licence was also payable by the licensee was announced at the time of the auction
The only grievance made by the petitioners has been that the prescribed scales of surcharge fee under Rule 642 were not announced but that is neither here nor there for if once it was announced at the time of the auction that assessed fee on sales effected on the licence at the prescribed scales shall also be payable by the licensee then obviously the bidders were put on enquiry to find out what scales of surcharge fee had been prescribed under the relevant Rule
In other words the bidders present at these auctions had full knowledge that assessed fee at prescribed rates will also be charged and it was with full knowledge of this position that they gave their bids
If that be so there is no question of the respondents  attempting to enhance the contractual liability of the successful bidder
It will be interesting to mention in this context that the respondents have stated in their counter affidavit that not only did the bidders know that assessed fee would be charged over and above the fixed fee auction money but many of the successful bidders to whom FL 2 licences were granted have actually passed on the assessed fee at the prescribed rates to and recovered the same from the retailers to whom they have effected sales of beer and Indian Made Foreign Liquor
At least in the case of those petitioners before us who have done so the aforesaid plea put forward on their behalf cannot be regarded as honest
The second contention therefore fails and is rejected
The last contention is merely required to be stated to be rejected
In support of that contention reliance was placed on the newly inserted condition in FL 2 licence which states that the assessed fee at such scales of surcharge fee as may be prescribed by the Government shall also be payable by the licensee while 768 actually the scales of surcharge fee have been prescribed by the Excise Commissioner by framing the amended Rule 642 in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by cl
c of 41 of the Principal Act
Counsel urged that scales of surcharge fee ought to have been prescribed by the Government
In this connection we might refer to sec
24Bc which expressly declares that the Excise Commissioner as the head of the Excise Department of the State shall be deemed while determining or realising such fee to act for and on behalf of the State Government
It is thus clear that the Excise Commissioner has been statutorily declared to be the agent of the State Government and while determining such fee by framing the amended Rule 642 he acted for and on behalf of the State Government
In other words scales of assessed fee under Rule 642 must be deemed to have been prescribed by the State Government
As regards the alleged non announcement at the time of the auctions we have already dealt with that aspect of the matter while dealing with and disposing of the second contention
No other point was raised
It is therefore clear that the levy and recovery of the assessed fee over and above the fixed fee by the respondents for granting FL 2 licences to all the petitioners would be legal and valid under the UP Excise Principal Act of 1910 as amended by Act 5 of 1976 and the amended Rules framed there under and all the petitions are liable to be dismissed
We accordingly dismiss all the writ petitions with costs and quantify the costs payable by each of the petitioners separately at Rs 5000
SR Petitions dismissed


Summary:
In exercise of the power conferred upon him under the amended clause c of section 41 the Excise Commissioner with the previous sanction of the State Government framed Rules Called the UP Excise Wholesale and Retail Vend of Foreign Liquor 2nd Amendment Rules 1976 by issuing the Notification No 27Licence 3 dated 14th April 1976 which were brought into force with effect from the date of publication in the Gazette namely 14th April 1976 by this Notification the existing Rules 639 641 and 642 as appearing in Excise Manual Vol
1962 Edn were amended Rule 6392 as amended provides that Licences in form FL 2 shall be settled by the public auction while Rule 641 as amended provides that the fee for a licence in form FL 2 shall be the amount of money accepted at the auction of the licence as fixed fee  together with an assessed fee charged on the basics of the scales of surcharge fee prescribed in Rule 642
By the very notification dated 14th of April 1976 the Excise Commissioner added one more condition in the form of a proviso to the terms and conditions of FL 2 Licence and the said addition made after condition No 1c runs thus Provided that the assessment fee on the sales made on the licence in the prescribed manner at such scales of surcharge fee as may be prescribed by the Government and announced at the time of the auction shall also be payable by the licencee Relying upon the amendments made in the UP Excise Act 1910 by Act 5 of 1976 and the amended Rules 639 641 and 642 and the insertion of the new condition in FL 2 licence the respondents introduced the auction system for the grant of licence in form FL 2 for wholesale vend of beer and Indian Made 756 Foreign Liquor and started levying and recovering the assessed fee in addition to the fixed fee auction money from the grantees of the licences
The Petitioners who were successful bidders and who had acquired vending rights in Indian Made Foreign Liquor for the financial years 1976 77 1977 78 1978 79 and 1979 80 challenged the levy of assessed fee in addition to the fixed fee on the following grounds i Under Section 302 of the Principal Act of 1910 prior to its amendment by UP Ordinance No 4 of 1979 and UP Act 13 of 1979 it was open to the respondents to adopt either one or the other method of granting FL 2 licences and determine the licence fee payable by the grantee accordingly that is to say the respondents could grant the licence either by auction or by calling tenders and once a particular mode was adopted it was incumbent upon them to apply the same for the purpose of determining the sum payable by the grantee in other words it was not opens them to adopt a combination of two or more methods and claim assessed fee in addition to fixed fee and this would be illegal and without authority of law
A combination of two or more methods became available to the respondents only under Section 302 as amended by UP Ordinance No 4 of 1979 and by UP Act 13 of 1979 ii In as much as the petitioners were not informed that any assessed fee had been fixed by the State Government which would be payable by the successful bidder the respondent s attempt to levy and recover the assessed fee over and above the fixed fee auction money was unwarranted and illegal in as much as the respondents could not enhance the petitioners  contractual liability which was limited to the payment of auction money and iii as per the newly inserted conditions in FL 2 Licence the assessed fee was required to be prescribed by the Government and announced at the time of auction but in the instant case such assessed fee had been prescribed by the Excise Commissioner and not by the State Government and was not announced at the time of the auction and for this reason also the same would not be recoverable
Dismissing the petitions the Court  HELD 1
The levy and recovery of the assessed fee over and above the fixed fee by the respondents for granting FL 2 licences to all the petitioners would be legal and valid under the UP Excise Act of 1910 as amended by Act 5 of 1976 and the amended rules framed thereunder
768 D E 21
A plain reading of Section 302 of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Act 1910 prior to its amendment by UP Ordinance No 4 of 1979 and by UP Act No 13 of 1973 makes it clear that the consideration for the grant of FL 2 licence could be determined either by auction or by calling tenders or otherwise
765 C E 22
The phrase or otherwise was sufficiently wide and conferred on its plain grammatical construction power on the State Government or the Excise Commissioner to grant the licence either by auction or by tenders or partly by auction and partly by tenders or even by adopting yet other methods than by auction or by inviting tenders
In other words the phrase or otherwise 757 enabled the State Government or the Excise Commissioner to adopt a combination of one or more methods for granting the FL 2 licence and determine the licence fee accordingly
Having regard to the phrase or otherwise occurring in the provision it can not be said that only one method to the exclusion of the others could be adopted for granting the licence or that one type of fee appropriate to that method could alone be charged
765 E G 23
Sub section 2 of Section 3 as amended by UP Ordinance 4 of 1979 or UP Act 13 of 1979 is clarificatory of the legal position which obtained under Sec
302 that was operative prior to the said amendment
765G 766A B 31
The bidders who gave their bids must be deemed to have knowledge of the provisions of the relevant Rules subject to which the auctions were held and therefore the bidders including the successful bidders whose highest bid was accepted did not offer their bids believing that only fixed fee would be charged since it was to their knowledge that the auctions for the grant of FL 2 licence were held under the amended provisions of the Act of 1910 by the Amendment of 1976 and that Rule 641 of Excise Manual clearly provided that the fee for the FL 2 licence shall be the amount of money accepted at the auction of the licence as fixed fee together with the assessed fee charged on the scales of surcharge fees prescribed in Rule 642
Further even according to the petitioners the new condition inserted by the Excise Commissioner in the said licence was read out
If admittedly the said condition inserted in FL 2 licence was read out at the time of auction then it is clear that the fact that assessed fee on the sales made on the licence was also payable by the licensee was announced at the time of auction
766 D H 767 B C 32
If once it was announced at the time of the auction that assessed fee on the sales affected on the licence at the prescribed scales shall also be payable by the Licensee then the bidders were put on enquiry to find out what scales of surcharge fees had been prescribed under the relevant Rule
In other words the bidders presented at these auctions had full knowledge that assessed fee at prescribed rates will also be charged and it was with full knowledge of this position that they gave their bids
If that be so there was no question of the respondents  attempting to enhance the contractual liability of the successful bidder
Further admittedly not only did the bidders know that assessed fee would be charged over and above the fixed fee auction money but many of them actually passed on the assessed fee at the prescribed rates to and recovered the same from the retailers to whom they effected sales of beer and Indian Made Foreign Liquor
767 C F 4
Section 24Bc which expressly declares that the Excise Commissioner as the head of Excise Department of the State shall be deemed while determining or realising such fee to act for and on behalf of the State Government makes it clear that the Excise Commissioner has been statutorily declared to be the agent of the State Government and while determining such fees by framing the amended Rules 642 he acted for and on behalf of the State Government in other words scales of assessed fee under Rule 642 must be deemed to have been prescribed by the State Government
768 B C 758