1. These two unnumbered Writ Petitions are placed before us on a reference made by K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. to determine the amount of court fee to be paid when more than one petitioner join together and file a single petition. G. Somarajan and 7 others filed a Writ Petition on 26.5.2003 before this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India remitting a court fee of Rs. 800/-. A separate direction petition was also filed by them along with the Writ Petition by paying a court fee of Rs. 50/-. Registry pointed out the deficiency of the court fee. Counsel insisted that separate court fee be not levied from each of petitioners for the direction petition. The Registry then made the following note:

"In the direction petition there are 8 petitioners, but only one court fee is paid. CF payable is Rs. 50/- per petitioner".

Incidental is the issue which arises for consideration in the Writ Petition filed by Varghese Joseph and 5 others. On a request made by the counsel matter was placed before the court and was heard by K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. Counsel brought to the knowledge of the learned judge the noting by the Registry and the ruling made by P.R. Raman, J. in another case. In that case five petitioners joined together filed a stay petition remitting a court fee of Rs. 10/- only. Registry objected and the matter was placed before the Court. The learned judge minuted as follows:

"As per Sch. II of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act as amended by Act 2003, Rs. 100/- per petitioner is the court fee payable in the O.P. filed before the High Court petitioner has already paid court fee as per the said provision. However, in the case of CMP., item T of Schedule II provides for payment of Rs. 10/- (Ten only) for an application or petition to be presented to the High Court and not otherwise specifically provided for.

Hence the Fee payable on an application. Otherwise, provided court fee payable is only Rs. 10/-. Hence there is no deficit of court fee payable on the CMP".

Sd/-

P.R. Raman, J."

Learned Government Pleader submitted before K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. that the learned Judge P.R. Raman interpreted Schedule II Art. 11(t) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 without referring to S. 6(3) and (4) and submitted since the petitioners claim reliefs individually each of the petitioners has to pay separate court fee. Learned Judge found force in the said submission of the Government Pleader and in view of the conflicting views the matter was referred to a Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. Hence both these Writ Petitions are before us along with the direction petitions to determine the requisite court fee to be paid in the direction petitions jointly filed by the petitioners in the Writ Petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The question involved is of considerable importance affecting the litigant public, hence we issued notice to the learned Advocate General as well as the President of the High Court Advocates' Association. We heard Advocate Sri. N. Nagaresh for the Writ Petitioners and the learned Government Pleader Sri. K.L. Joseph for the State Government as well as Sri. K.T. Sankaran for the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association.

3. Court fee is defined to be charged for special service rendered to the litigant public by the State Government for the constitution and organisation of Courts. The constitution and organisation of High Court is an exclusive union subject under Entry 78 List 1. Regulation and organisation of the proceeding in the High Court is a law relating to administration of justice which falls under Entry 11-A of List III. Entry 3 of List II of the VIIth Schedule gives exclusive power to State Legislature to regulate the procedure in rent and revenue courts, court fee taken before the High Court and other Courts. The Supreme Court in Secretary, Government of Madras v. Zenith Lamps and Electricals, AIR 1973 SC 724, Om Prakash v. Giri Raj Kishori, A