Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : N.KUMARAYYA, P.CHANDRA REDDY
Manyamma - Appellant
Versus
Municipal Commissioner, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 08-25-58
COURT FEES ACT, 1870 - SECTION 7 - VALIDITY OF COURT FEES ACT - COURT FEES ACT IS CONSTITUTIONAL - IT DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTICLES 229 AND 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION - IT IS WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO PRESCRIBE COURT FEES - CLASSIFICATION OF WRITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COURT FEES IS REASONABLE - NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE CONFERRED ON INANIMATE OBJECTS LIKE WRITS - THE FEE IS NOT A TAX BUT A PAYMENT FOR A SPECIAL SERVICE RENDERED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the validity of the Court Fees Act, 1870, Section 7, which prescribed a court fee of Rs. 100 for writ petitions, arguing that it violated Articles 229 and 14 of the Constitution and was beyond the competence of the State Legislature.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Court Fees Act, 1870, Section 7, was constitutional and did not violate Articles 229 and 14 of the Constitution. It also held that the State Legislature had the competence to prescribe court fees and that the classification of writs for the purpose of court fees was reasonable.
Issues: 1. Whether the Court Fees Act, 1870, Section 7, violates Articles 229 and 14 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the State Legislature has the competence to prescribe court fees? 3. Whether the classification of writs for the purpose of court fees is reasonable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Articles 229 and 14 of the Constitution are not violated by the Court Fees Act, 1870, Section 7, as it does not deny equality before the law or equal protection of laws. 2. The State Legislature has the competence to prescribe court fees under Entry 3 of List II of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution. 3. The classification of writs for the purpose of court fees is reasonable as it is based on intelligible differential and there is a nexus between the basis of the classification and the object of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and upheld the validity of the Court Fees Act, 1870, Section 7.
( 2 ) THESE contentions are devoid of substance. We Are unable to see how Articles 229 and 14 of the Constitution are infringed by the State Legislature in enacting laws prescribing a particular court-fee. Reliance is placed on paragraph 3 of Article 229 which lays down that the "administrative expenses of a High Court Including all salaries, allowances and pensions payable to or in respect of the officers and servants of the Court shall be charged upon the consolidated Fund of the State and any fees or other moneys taken by the Court shall form part of the Fund. " That does not take away the power of the State Legislature to make laws in regard to payment of court-fee. The question whether the court-fee charged in the High Court forms part of the consolidated fund does not arise here.
( 3 ) THE submission founded on Article 14 is equally fallacious. Article 14 prohibits a State from denying to any person equality before law or equal protection of laws within the territory of India. It does not mean that every one has similar rights or right to the same thing. But, all rights of the same kind are equal as between different individuals. It prohibits a State from making discrimination between persons equally situated. While it forbids class legislation, it does not prevent a Legislature from making a reasonable classification. We need not re-state here what conditions should be satisfied to pass the test of reasonable classification. The principles governing the applicability of Article 14 are clearly enunciated by the Supreme Court in Budhan Choudary v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191. There can be no scope for contending in this case that the classification is not based on intelligible differential or that there is no nexus between the basis of the classification and the object of the Act. Further, no fundamental rights are conferred on inanimate objects like suits or appeals or civil revision petitions or writ petitions. , A complaint could be made only if persons pursuing the same remedy i. e. , instituting the same category of proceedings are treated differently in regard to the payment of court-fee etc. It is not the complaint of Mr. Chobe that different rules are laid down in regard to different individuals involving the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. His grievance is that while the increase in Court fee in regard to some of the matters such as suits, vocalist, appeals is below 50 per cent, the court-fee in regard to the writ petitions is enhanced by 59 times. That is not a matter for a Court to inquire into. It is a question of legislative policy which cannot be impugned in a Court of law. It is for the legislature to decide as to the rates leviable in regard to various matters taken to a Court of law.
( 4 ) THEN, coming to the jurisdiction of the State legislature to enact laws in regard to the subject, the point sought to be raised by Mr. Chobe is without any force. Power has been conferred specifically on State Legislatures by entry 3 in list II of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution to make laws in regard to fees taken in all Courts except the Supreme Court. It is not confined to law-making power in regard to administration of justice as imagined by Mr. Chobe.
( 5 ) IT was then argued that item 96 of list No. I has conferred jurisdiction on the Center to pass laws in regard to the fees to be taken i
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.