JUDGMENT

FAIZANUDDIN, J.

( 1 ) THE appeal by certificate granted by the High Court has been directed against the judgment dated 3/03/1975 delivered by the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 749/1966 P. R. Sriramulu v. The Secretary to the Government of Madras. Home Department along with a group of other Writ Petitions and Civil Appeals, declaring Article (1) in Schedule (1) to Tamilnadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and sub-rule (1) of Rule (1) of Order II of the High Court-fees Rules, 1956 based on Article (1) of Schedule (1) of Madras Act No. XIV of 1955, to be invalid in so far as they relate to the levy of Court-fee on ad valorem scale.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief leading to the aforesaid appeal are that certain land belonging to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein situated in Tondiarpet were acquired at the instance of Public Works Department in respect of which awards Nos. 6 and 8 both of 1962 were made on 5-3-1962 and 10-3-1962. On a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Requisition Act, at the instance of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, IVth, Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras enhanced the compensation. The respondents being dissatisfied preferred appeals to the High Court for further enhancement of the compensation. The Court-fee payable according to Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 on such appeals was an advalorem Court-fee at the rate of 7 1/2 per cent of the total claim without any upper limit for such levy irrespective of the amount. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 challenged the validity of the aforesaid provision of levy of Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act of 1955 with reference to levy of Court-fees advalorem working out at the rate of 7 1/2 per cent without upper limit by contending that the levy is not only exorbitant but wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustified bearing no relationship to the cost of administration of justice and that in fact it was not a lvey of Court-fee but really a levy of tax though purporting to be a levy of fee. The respondents took the stand that the Court-fees must be related to the cost of administration of justice and cannot be used as means of taxation for the purpose of raising the revenue to the Government for its general administration. Respondents further took the stand that the pattern of levy of Court-fee up to a certain limit and thereafter the fee was on a reduced scale and that the scale of fees in other States of the country are also on different basis and not on the basis of ad valoram fee without limit. The said provision therefore were sought to be declared invalid.

( 3 ) ONE Mr. Kelu Eradi, Joint Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu had filed the counter affidavit on behalf of the State supporting the levy of advalorem Court-fees and opposing the writ petitions. However, at the arguments stage one Mr. J. Shiva Kumar, Deputy Secretary to the Government also filed a supplementary counter affidavit dated 11-10-1966 on behalf of the Government but the High Court did not take into account the said supplementary counter affidavit and decided writ petitions. Relying on the principles laid down in Corporation of Madras v. Spencer and Co. the High Court allowed the group of writ petitions and appeal and struck down the aforementioned provisions by taking the view that the levy of advalorem flat rate of 7 1/2 per cent without any upper limit would be unreasonable, because where the cost of service had to be distributed between several persons, it would not be equitable and reasonable if the fees were so fixed that the whole cost or a grossly dis-proportionate part of it was imposed on a particular section of litigants. The said judgment was challenged before this Court in appeal. This Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and remitted the matter back to the High Court with the following observations :"it seems to us that we cannot dispose of this appeal without giving opportunity to the respondents to file an aff