Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.:— In the present case, the fee is admittedly not a compensatory fee and consequently there is no requirement of a quid pro quo. What we have to examine is whether it is a regulatory fee or not. The Act under which the licence fee is levied itself discloses the purpose and guiding principle i.e regulation, control and management of horse racing at race courses as set out in the preamble itself. The object of the licence is to regulate horse racing for without the licence there is a prohibition on horse racing on unlicensed race courses as per the provisions of Section 3 of the said Act. Clearly, then, the licence is not compensatory but regulatory and as such the “licence fee” would not require any quid pro quo in tike form of any special service. (Para 19)
This takes us to the next question viz whether the fee which is being charged as a regulatory fee is excessive? When the fee was introduced in Delhi in 1984, it was Rs. 2000/- per race day for venue races and Rs. 500/- per race day for intervenue races. This continued to be the position till 2001. Nobody complained. It is only when the fee was enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 5000/- per day on which the race was held that the petitioner came to the Court. It, therefore, appears that the impost of Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 500/- was regarded by the Petitioner as not being excessive in 1984. The question, therefore, is whether Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 500/- in 1984 and Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 5000/- in 2001 represent a material change in real terms? Although in nominal terms there is a ten-fold increase in the licence fee, in real terms the increase, if at all, would not be much keeping in mind the high rates of inflation and ever increasing costs of living in the intervening years, i.e, 1984 to 2001. So, in real terms, there is not much of an increase, if at all, and, therefore, we are of the view that the enhanced fee is not excessive. In fact, apart from merely alleging that the enhancement in fee was excessive, the petitioner has not placed any material to back this allegation of theirs. It would not be out of place to mention that enhancement in licence fees in the range of 4 to 30 times between 1981 and 1992 have been upheld by the Supreme Court in the Secunderabad Hyderabad Hotel Owners case (supra). On the other hand in the case of A.P Paper Mills (supra) the Supreme Court struck down an enhancement in licence fee from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 18,00,000/- as being too high and excessive. The present case is one which is akin to the enhancement as in the Secunderabad Hyderabad Hotel Owners case (supra) and is, therefore, not a case where the licence fee is excessive. (Para 20)