ORDER : I am now concerned only with the question of correct court fee payable on this petition for aWrit of Certiorari. The petitioner is a simple mortgagee of property which has been subsequently declared evacuee property and taken over by the Assistant Custodian. It was then acquired under section 12 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act XIV of 1954 and was sold in auction on 29-1-1956. In vain did the petitioner apply to the Assistant Custodian and then to the Custodian in appeal.

The former on 25-1-1956 and the latter by an order dated 9-6-1956 repelled his contention. He therefore applied to this court on 10-9-1956 for a writ of certiorari paying a court fee of Rs. 10/-. But the Andhra Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (Act VH of 1956) had already come into force on 1-5-1956 whereunder, according to schedule, a court-fee of Rs. 100/- is payable on such petitions. The petitioner contends that the court-fee actually paid by him is the correct court-fee payable.

The argument in support of this contention proceeds on the basis, firstly, that since the proceedings which gave occasion to this Writ were instituted long before the advent of the Act, he had a vested right to pay court-fee according to the rules then in force and this right cannot be affected by the new Act; secondly, that the new Act in terms has protected such a right alleged, thirdly, that at any rate, the court-fee for such proceedings being mentioned in the schedule and not under the Act itself, there was no legal liability to pay the same.

The learned counsel during the course of arguments referred me to Article 226 of the Constitution and the power of the High Court to make rules and prescribe court-fee conferred thereby; but he at the same time, made it clear that he is not disputing the competency of the Legislature to effectively make laws on the same subject of court-fee. He concedes that the rule made by the High Court prescribing court-fee of Rs. 20/- in exercise of the powers under Article 225 of the Constitution, would have no legal authority if the appropriate Legislature prescribed a different court-fee.

But his contention is that unless the new Legislation expressly or by necessary implication gives retrospective operation to the provisions, it would not affect the pre-existing court-fee in relation to proceedings already instituted or proceedings which may arise therefrom. He further contends that a writ proceeding is a proceeding of latter description.

2. It would appear from the express provisions of the Act that the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act does not apply to proceedings that arose from suits or proceedings already instituted before the advent of the Act. Section 79 (2) reads as below :

"All suits and proceedings instituted before the commencement of this Act and all proceedings by way of appeal, revision or otherwise arising therefrom, whether instituted before or after such commencement, shall, notwithstanding the repeal of the Court-fees Act, 1870 (Central Act VII of 1870), and the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 (Central Act VII of 1887), be governed by the provisions of the said Acts and the rules made thereunder."

3. Thus in all proceedings by way of appeal, revision or otherwise arising from the previously instituted suit or proceeding, the court-fee shall be paid as though the new Act has not come into force at all. But we are now concerned with a writ proceeding which does not fall within the ambit of this class as it is neither a proceeding in the nature of appeal or revision nor can it be said that it otherwise arises from the previously instituted suit or proceeding. It is indeed an altogether different and independent proceeding. As has been observed in Ramayya v. State of Madras, ILR 1952 Mad 698. (AIR 1952 Mad 300) (A), a writ of certiorari, unless it relates to criminal matters, is an original civil proceeding.

The power to issue such writ is original and also the jurisdiction exercised is original ju

Click Here to Read the rest of this document