High Court if empowered to prescribe Court-fee.

This is a court-fee reference by the Master. R.M. Seshadri filed C.S. No. 541 of 1949 on the Original Side of this Court for a declaration that the order of the defendant (State of Madras), dated 7th August, 1947 terminating his service as a member of the Indian Civil Service was ultra vires its powers, illegal and void, and directing it to restore him to an office appropriate to his rank and seniority in the service, and for recovery of arrears of salary of a sum of Rs. 28,884-13-0 and damages of a sum of one lakh rupees for terminating his service illegally and arbitrarily. On the plaint he paid a court-fee of Rs. 935. The suit was dismissed by Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., on 25th March, 1952. On 20th August, 1952, he preferred an Original Side Appeal against the decree and judgment. He valued the memorandum of appeal at a sum of Rs,. 1,44,385-13-0 and paid a court-fee of Rs. 935, i.e., the same amount he paid on the plaint. Rule 1 of Order 2 of the High Court Fees Rules, 1933, as amended by R.O.C. No. 2219, 49-B-1 provides that to documents including a memorandum of appeal, the registrar shall apply the law for the time being in force relating to court-fee, etc., (i.e., the Court-Fees Act) in the manner and to the extent that it is applicable to similar documents filed in original proceedings in a District Court and in appeals from decrees and orders of a District Court. This rule came into force on 27th June, 1950. The office insisted that court-fee should be paid on the memorandum of appeal under this rule. If this rule applied, the Court-fee payable would be Rs. 2,832-7-0 (Rs. 500 for the relief of declaration and Rs. 2,332-7-0 on the other reliefs under Article 1, Schedule I of the Court-Fees Act). A sum of Rs. 935 having been paid already, he was asked to pay the deficit court-fee of Rs. 1,897-7-0.

The plaintiff who argued in person before us raised two contentions

(1) Before the Constitution the High Court had no power to prescribe court-fees, and after the Constitution also they are not in a better position as the legislature specifically conferred exclusive jurisdiction to impose court-fees on the legislature of the State.

(2) He is only liable to pay court-fee on the memorandum of appeal at the scale obtaining at the time the plaint was filed.

To ascertain the powers of the High Court in regard to the imposition of court-fees it would be necessary to know its powers before the Constitution, those conferred on it under the Constitution, and those retained or continued under its transitory provisions.

The relevant provisions of the Constitution of India may now be read:

Article 245(1): Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India, and the Legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State.

Article 246(3): Subject to clauses (1) and (2), the Legislature of any State specified in Part A or Part B of the First Schedule has exclusive power to make laws for such State or any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the “State List.”)

Seventh Schedule, List II, State List:

Item 3: Administration of justice; constitution and organisation of all Courts, except the Supreme Court and the High Court; Officers and servants of the High Court; procedure in rent and revenue Courts; fees taken in all Courts except the Supreme Court.

Item 65: Jurisdiction and powers of all Courts, except the Supreme Court, with respect to any of the matters in this List.

Article 225: Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the provisions of any law of the appropriate Legislature made by virtue of powers conferred on that Legislature by this Constitution, the jurisdiction of, and the law administered in, any existing High Court, and the respective powers of the Judges thereof, in relation to the administration of justice in the Court, including any