The common issue arising in all these cases is, whether the petitioner is entitled to have exemption from the payment of 'additional Court Fee' payable at the rate of 0.5 % to the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund, for sustaining appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The petitioners, who challenge the assessment orders passed by the concerned authority, lost the battle before the first appellate authority, which led to the proceedings filed before the Tribunal. The said proceedings were noted as defective, for the fact that the requisite 'additional Court Fee' as specified above was not paid by the petitioners. True, the petitioners had filed an application for exempting them from paying the 'additional Court Fee' as above, but after considering the relevant provisions of law, the Tribunal observed that there was absolutely no power or provision to accede to the request made by the petitioners and accordingly the petitions were dismissed, leading to the natural consequence of dismissing the Appeals as well, which in turn has been subjected to challenge in the present Writ Petition.

3. The basic question to be answered is whether the departmental authorities can impose the 'additional Court Fee' as stated above. The source of power is available from Section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. It was in accordance with above, that the SRO 225 of 2002 was issued by the Government, whereby levy of 'additional Court Fee' was introduced w.e.f. 16.2.2004 and ever since then, in respect of the assessment years starting from the date of operation of the above prescription, the concerned appellants are made liable to pay the 'additional Court Fee' for entertaining the matter before the Tribunal.

4. The sustainability of the legal provisions in this regard, particularly, as to the scope of Section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, SRO 225 of 2002 and the relevant provisions of Kerala Legal Benefit Fund Rules, 1991, were subjected to challenge before this Court earlier, contending that there was absolutely no power or jurisdiction to impose any such additional liabilities towards Court Fee. The said contentions were negated by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Ismail Vs. State of Kerala (2005 (3) KLT 1052) which was affirmed by the Division Bench as per the decision rendered in Chackolas Spinning Weaving Mills Vs. State of Kerala 2006(1) KLT 989. This being the position, the rights and liabilities with regard to the stipulation for payment of the 'additional Court Fee' stand concluded and it is no more open to challenge.

5. The main contention put forth from the part of the petitioners is, that the proceedings before the Tribunal are more or less akin to the provisions and proceedings before the Civil Court and as such, the relevant provisions of Civil Procedure Code are liable to be made applicable to the proceedings of the Tribunal as well. To put it more clear, petitioners seek to rely upon the provisions of Order 44 and 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be made applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunal as well, for enabling them to file necessary proceeding in 'forme pauperis'. Both the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners, referring to many a ground raised in the Writ Petitions submit that, the Tribunal is having all the trappings of Civil Court and this being the position, the petitioners ought to have been permitted to pursue the proceedings granting exemption, by virtue of Order 33 of the Civil Procedure Code. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in AIR 1979 SC 855 (State of Haryana Vs. Smt. Darsana Devi and others)

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to the powers of the Tribunal, particularly as to the powers conferred under Sections 53, 55, 55B, 39(2) submits that non exercise of the jurisdiction by the Tribunal in considering the request made by the petitioners and in denying the benefit of exemption is without any regard to the pro