JUDGMENT

SEN, J. :— In all these appeals except the, one by special leave, and the connected transferred cases brought by the appellants, each of which is a company incorporated .under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of manufacture and sale on a very large scale of textiles generally and also of rayon yarn and staple fibre, both of which form species of what is known as man made fibre i.e. artificial silk, there is a common question as to the constitutional validity of a fee imposed under R. 21 of the Textiles Committee Rules, 1965 made by the Central Government under S. 22 of the Textiles Committee Act, 1963, by the Textiles Committee constituted under S. 3 of the Act, on the production of rayon yarn and staple fibre i.e. man made fibres manufactured by them. These appeals are against the various judgments and orders of the High Courts of Allahabad, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Madras upholding the validity of the levy. The remaining appeal i.e. Civil Appeal No. 121 of 1973 is preferred by the Textiles Committee against the judgment and order of the Kerala High Court taking the view to the contrary.

2. The facts in all these cases are more or less similar. It would suffice for our purposes to notice the salient features thereof. To illustrate, the appellant company in Civil Appeal No. 869 of 1973, Messrs Sirsilk Ltd., Hyderabad is a manufacturer of rayon yarn and staple fibre and has established its factory at Sirpur Kagaznagar in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the manufacture of the aforesaid man made fibres. The Chief Inspecting Officer, Textiles Committee by his letter dated May 19, 1965 directed all the textile mills in India including the appellant to send immediately, the monthwise statements of production for March and April, 1965 and a cheque in payment of the fees due thereon. However, the Association of man made Fibre Industry, Bombay of which the appellant is a member by its letter dated May 25, 1985 advised the textile mills to keep the payment of fees in abeyance, as it made a representation dated May 26, 1965 on behalf of its members to the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India and to the Textiles Commissioner. Along with its letter, the Association forward to all its members a copy of the said representation. By a further letter dated May 29, 1965, the Association advised all the textile mills including the appellant to send a reply to the letter addressed by the Textiles Committee demanding payment of fees to the effect that the Association had already made a representation to the Ministry of Commerce and the Textiles Commissioner and as soon as a reply was received by them, they would revert to the subject and take such action as might be necessary in the circumstances. In the meanwhile, the Textiles Committee by its letter dated August 10, 1965 made a demand for payment of. the fees for the months of March to July, 1965. The appellant in its reply expressed its inability to pay the fees in view of the pending representation made by the Association on their behalf and more so because the Association had advised the members that the fee would become payable by the textile mills only in connection with the inspection and examination and must be commensurate with the exact quantum of services rendered by the Committee. The appellants were however informed that one of its members had already remitted the fees. Consequently, the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 40,186.37 P. towards the fee for the period from March 1, 1965 to February 28, 1966. It however adopted the stand that the payment of the fee was under a mistake and under misconception as to its legal rights. It accordingly called upon the Association to take up the matter with the Ministry of Commerce and the Textiles Commissioner and to lodge a strong protest against the illegal exaction of the fee by the Textiles Committee from its members when, in fact, no services of any kind were being rendered.

3. Thereafter, the Accounts Officer, Texti