Court fee payable under Article 6 of Schedule I of the Act (A. P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act), for granting probate or Letters of Administration is not tax or duty.

( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition is filed for issuing a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1 st respondent not to collect Court Fee from the petitioner on the Letter of Administration to be issued to the petitioner pursuant to the Order, dated 27th April 1993, in Original Petition No. 172 of 1993, on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad, 1st respondent-herein, in excess of the court-fee prescribed under Article 1 (c) (viii) of the 1st Schedule to the A. P. Court Fee and Suits valuation Act 1956 (for short the Act ).

( 2 ) THE necessary facts may be noticed. Petitioner filed Original Petition No. 172 of 1993 before the first respondent under section 232 of the Indian Succession act to grant Letter of Administration to him, for the last will and Testament, dated 29th November 1985, of his father, who died on 1st June 1991. A court-fee of rs. 25/- as required under Article 11 (k) of schedule-II of the Act was paid on the said petition. Two brothers and the only sister of the petitioner were impleaded as respondents in that petition, as they would be interested in opposing the petition. They filed affidavits and also gave evidence stating that they have no objection for granting of Letter of Administration to the petitioner. First respondent, after considering the entire material on record, allowed o. P. No. 172 of 1993 by his Order, dated 27th April, 1993. The Superintendent (Judicial) of the Court of the 1st respondent demanded the petitioner to pay court-fee under Article 6 of Schedule I of the Act at 5 per cent of the value of the estate, to secure the letter of administration. The value of the estate to be administered being rs. 18,77,303/-, the petitioner is required to pay Rs. 85,000/ -. Aggrieved by the aforesaid demand made, for payment of court-fee, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner.

( 3 ) THE main ground urged by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is, that Article 6 of Schedule-I of the Act, prescribing five per cent ad valorem court-fee on the letter of administration, is ultra vires of the provisions of the Constitution of India, as it suffers from the vice of hostile discrimination, offending Articles 14 and 39 (a) of the Constitution of India. Petitioner submits that a court-fee of Rs. 20,426/- only is payable in a regular suit if the subject-matter of the suit is valued at Rs. 18,00,000/- and hence prescribing court-fee at 5 per cent ad valorem (i. e. , Rs. 85,000/-) for granting Letter of Administration to administer an estate of the same value of Rs. 18,00,000/- is discriminatory; there is no nexus for demanding that abnormal amount of Rs. 85,000/- towards court-fee; and that as per Article 11 (k) of Schedule-II of the Act, even in the event of contest, the maximum court-fee payable is only half of the court-fee payable on the plaint filed in a suit concerning the same value of the property, which comes to Rs. 10,213/- only. Hence, it is contended by the petitioner that the demand made by the 1st respondent for payment of court-fee of Rs. 85,000/- on the Letter of Administration is bad. Petitioner further contends that the present demand being tax or duty , which is beyond the Legislative competence of the State Legislature, is not recoverable from the petitioner. Petitioner contends further that, issuing Letter of Administration by the Office of the 1st respondent-Court of Additional Chief Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad, after allowing the original Petition No. 172 of 1993 by the court of the 1st respondent being only an administrative act , charging of additional court-fee for that purpose is bad. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the bombay High Court, Jyoti v. State (1) AIR 1988 Bombay 123 which was upheld by the Supreme Court, in PM. Aswathanarayana setty v. State of Karnataka (2) air 1989 SC 100.

( 4 ) THE learned Government Pleader for Home, Mr. Madanmohan Rao, on the other hand, co