Radhakrishnan, Ag. C.J.

Common question arises for consideration in all these cases, hence we are disposing of the same by a common judgment.

2. Legislative competence of the State in empowering the Government to levy additional court fee in respect of appeals or revisions to the Tribunals and appellate authorities under section 76(1) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 was questioned before the learned single Judge without success. Though appeal was preferred against the various findings of the learned single Judge including the findings regarding legislative competence of the State to impose such a levy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant did not dispute the legislative competence of the State to levy the fee as per section 76 of the Court Fees Act.

3. Counsel for the appellant Sri. A.K. Jayasankar however, contended that imposition of levy by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of section 76 of the Court Fees Act vide SRO.No.226/02, is disproportionately, high which partakes the character of a tax, which the State Government cannot levy as per scheme of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the apex court in Government of Madras v. Zenith Lamp & Electricals Ltd. (1973) 1 SCC 162, Secretary to Government of Madras V. P.R. Sriramulu and another, (1996) 1 SCC 345, M/s. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. V. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1019 and Calcutta Municipal Corpn. V. Shrey Mercantile (P) Ltd., (2005) 4 SCC 245 to establish his contention. Sri. E.P. Govindan, counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP.(C).35329 of 2004 placed reliance on the decision of the apex court in Koluthara Exports Ltd. V. State of Kerala, 2002 (1) KLT 658 (SC) and contended that the levy of additional court fee has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved and there is no quid pro quo on levy of fee assuming the character of a tax.

4. Sri. Raju Joseph, Special Government Pleader (Taxes) placed reliance on the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent in WP.(C).No.20020 of 2004 and submitted that as per the rule, the fund shall be utilized for making provision for working space for the Advocates, Clerks, resting place and other facilities for the parties and witnesses attending the Court, conducting Legal Aid Camps for people interested in the Legal Service, expenditure for engaging Advocates for special cases, publication relating to legal issues and important decisions of the Kerala High Court to create legal awareness among people of the State and such other matters as the committee may feel necessary to provide efficient legal service for the people of the State. Counsel submitted that the amount collected by way of court fee under Article 16 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act is generally used for the maintenance of Tribunals and for the efficient functioning of the Tribunals and for other related matters.

5. We are in this case concerned only with the question as to whether the levy of fee is disproportionately high warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act was enacted to amend and consolidate the law relating to court fees and valuation of suits in the State of Kerala, Chapter VIII of the Act deals with Legal Benefit Fund. Section 76 (1) of the Act enables the State Government to levy additional court fee in respect of appeals or revisions to Tribunals or appellate authorities, other than civil and criminal courts, at a rate not exceeding one per cent of the amount involved in the dispute in cases where it is capable of valuation and in other cases at a rate not exceeding one hundred rupees for each appeal or revision. Sub-section (2) of Section 76 deals with the constitution of a legal benefit fund. The proceeds of the additional court fee levied and collected under sub-section (1) of section 76 has to be credited to this legal benefit fund. Further 50% of th