Strict adherence to the provisions of the High Court Rules and the Court Fees Act regarding the filing of certified copies and payment of court fees is necessary, and exceptions to these requirements are limited.

1. In the present matter, a typed copy of the impugned order has been filed at Annexure-5 with a declaration in the writ application affidavit that the annexures are true/photo copies of their respective originals. I, of my own, required the counsel to satisfy me that in a case like present where an order passed by the subordinate Tribunal/subordinate authority which is under the control of this High Court either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of lndia or an order passed by a quasi/-judicial Tribunal is required to be challenged by filing a certified copy or a plain photo copy or true typed copy of such a document can be filed. l also required the counsel to address on the question that if the certified copy is to be filed then in accordance with Section 4 read with Schedule l, Clause 8, Court fees tickets of Rs. 10.00 for every three hundred and sixty words or fraction of three hundred and sixty words are to be affixed or not. As the matter is likely to affect the fraternity at large and was in my opinion of general importance, l requested the lawyers to assist the Court on the said point. I also requested Mr. A. K. Singh, learned counsel for the State to assist me.

2. Undisputedly the High Court Rules govern the filing of the petitions, appeals, applications etc. The High Court Rules framed on the administrative side do control the proceedings to be taken. The High Court rules also provide for submission of the documents either in original or their true copies or the certified copies.

3. The question for consideration simply is that in accordance with Chapter lll-A of Part II of the Rules of the High Court at Patna, 1916, is it permissible for an Applicant/Pleader/Advocate to file a true copy/ photo copy of the certified copy or of the original when a particular order is under challenge.

4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supported by some eminent lawyers at the Bar to show that in accordance with Rule 4 of Chapter III of Part II of the Patna High Court Rules, a liberty is given to the petitioner to file a document in its original form or its certified copy or its photostat copy or a true copy of the same and as the liberty is unrestricted barring the matters relating to Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, every presentation in the High Court for inviting its original jurisdiction along with a photo copy or a true typed copy would suffice the requirement. It is, however, conceded before me that if a certified copy of a document is filed then in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 read with Scheduled l (Item No. 8), court fees will have to be paid.

5. It is contended that in case of annexures to an affidavit being not the original document or its certified copy, the declarant shall also state in the affidavit that the annexure is a true copy of the original. Placing reliance upon the language of sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of Chapter III, it is contended that a certified copy of the original document can be filed but the same being not mandatory, a true copy of the same can, be filed provided a declaration is made in the affidavit that it is a true copy. It is also contended that in cases arising out of 1956 Act, a certified copy of the order or orders impugned should only be annexed or filed with the application. From this language it is sought to be contended that in cases arising out of Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, only certified copies of the orders are to be filed and plain copies of the orders other than the final order will be accepted, if annexed. Learned counsel for the petitioner and members of the Bar submitted that as the liberty is granted to them to file the true copies, it is not necessary to file the certified copy and affix the authentication fees.

6. On the other hand learned counsel Mr. A. K. Singh submits that a perusal of sub-rule (2) and its proviso would make it clear