Judgment

SIKRI, C.J.I. :- This appeal, by certificate granted by the High Court is directed against the judgment dated March 31, 1967 of the High Court of Madras, in Zenith Lamps and Electricals Ltd. v. Registrar, High Court, Madras given in Writ Petition No. 1743 of 1964 (and Writ Petition No. 3891 of 1965), (reported in ILR (1968) 1 Mad 247). Messrs. Zenith Lamps and Electrical Limited, respondent before us and hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, intended to file a suit in the Madras High Court, on the original side, claiming a relief valued at Rupees 2,06,552, against the Revenue. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1743 of 1964 on the question of Court-fee payable on the intended suit, praying that the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or other direction or order declaring Rule 1 of the High Court Fee s Rules 1956 and the provisions of the Madras Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (Madras Act XIV of 1955) to be invalid and ultra vires in so far as they relate to the levy of fee s on ad valorem scale. It was contended that Rule 1 of the High Court Fees Rules, 1956, was void and ultra vires because the Madras Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (XIV of 1955) which had been applied in these Rules was void and ultra vires. Various reasons were given in the petition for alleging that the impugned Rule was void. It was stated inter alia that there was no justification at all for the increase of Court-fees in 1955 and 1956 on the basis of civil litigants being made to pay fees covering the expenditure on civil litigation. It was alleged that "whenever an increase is contemplated, it is for the authority to justify by facts and figures such increase by showing that the actual expenditure at the time exceeds the fee income." The petitioner alleged that "Judged by this test, the increases of 1955 were without any legal or actual justification." It was further alleged that the State was proceeding on the basis that the Court-fees had to compensate the Government both for the cost of civil as well as criminal administration, which was unwarranted. In ground D it was alleged :

"From the figures of 1963-64 available from the budget for 1964-65, it is seen that the fees levied exceeds the cost of administration of civil justice. The figures have further to be scrutinised and amended so that inadmissible items such as fees of Government s Law Officers are eliminated as it is not the duty of litigant public generally to bear the expense of the State s Law Officers."

2. In ground E it was alleged that it was ultra vires and inequitable to levy an ad valorem fee without limit from the petitioner in a single proceeding.

3. Various other reasons were given but it is not necessary to set them out.

4. The State filed an affidavit in reply maintaining that Rule 1 of the High Court Fees Rules, 1956 and the Madras Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (Madras Act XIV of 1955) were legal and valid. It was stated that the rates of fees prescribed under the Court Fees Act of 1955 were not excessive and that the levy did not amount to a tax on litigants. The State gave figures to show that the expenditure on the administration of justice was higher during the year 1954-55 than the fees realised. The State rebutted the contention that the cost of criminal administration and the fees paid to Government Law Officers should not be taken into account in justifying Court-fees.

5. This affidavit was filed on March 6, 1965. It appears that a supplemental counter-affidavit on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 was filed on October 11, 1966. In this affidavit various statements were given to show that the expenditure on the administration of justice was higher than the receipts.

6. The petitioner took objection to the filing of the supplemental counter-affidavit at that stage because it was filed after the arguments had started. It was contended that the figures given in the counter-affidavit would require drastic scrutiny. It was also allege