( 1 ) THIS Bench has been constituted under Section 5 of the Court-fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act) to determine the court-fee payable on a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. A petition under this Article was presented to the Court on which a court-fee of Rs. 5/- had been paid. That fee was considered insufficient by the Taxing Officer who was of opinion that as a consequence of the amendment made in the principal Act by the U. P. Court-fees (Second Amendment) Act, 1958 (U. P. Act XLIV of 1958) and the Court-fees (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Ordinance, 1959 (U. P. Ordinance II of 1959) the proper fee was rs. 50/ -. The Ordinance has now been replaced by the Court-fees (Uttar Pradesh Amendment act, 1959 (U. P. Act X of 1959) and the provisions of the principal Act so amended which call for consideration are Section 4 and Clause (e) of Article 1 of Schedule II. These provisions, so far as they are material, read as follows:

"section 4. No documents of any of the kinds specified in the first or second schedule to this Act annexed, as chargeable with fees, shall be filed. . . . . in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the exercise of its. . . . jurisdiction to issue directions, orders or writs under the Constitution of india unless in respect of such document there has been paid a fee of an amount not less than that indicated by either of the said Schedules as a proper fee for such document. "

Clause (e) of Article 1 of Schedule II: clause (e) of Art. 1 of Schedule II:"application or petition (e) When presented to a Fifty high Court Rupe es. (2) Under Art. ,, 226 of the constitution. . . The validity of these provisions so far as they purport to impose court-fee on petitions under article 226 is challenged by the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE argument is two-fold. It is contended, first, that the levy imposed by the amendment is not a fee but a tax and is therefore beyond the competence of the State Legislature. Secondly, it is urged that the Court when acting under Article 226 is exercising a power and not a jurisdiction and that the amendment of Section 4 of the Principal Act is ineffective to achieve its purpose.

( 3 ) THE second of these submissions can in my opinion be disposed of shortly. "jurisdiction" is defined in Murrays Dictionary as meaning "power or authority in general. . . the extent or range of judicial or administrative power; the territory over which such power extends. " I have no doubt that a jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by Article 226 to issue directions, orders or writs, and that it is in the exercise of that jurisdiction that it issues directions, orders and writs.

( 4 ) MR. Jagdish Swarup who appears for the petitioner has, in a very careful and interesting argument, invited our attention to the history of the legislation in India with regard to the imposition of court-fees and to the distinction between a tax and a fee, ordinarily so called, adumbrated by the Supreme Court in Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar, 1954 SCR 1005: (AIR 1954 SC 282 ). I think however that the answer to the matter at issue lies in a narrow compass.

( 5 ) UNDER Article 246 (3) of the Constitution the legislature of a State has power to make laws for such State with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II in the Seventh Schedule. It is common ground that the only entries in that List relevant for our present purpose are entries 3 and 66. They read as follows:

"3. Administration of Justice: Constitution and organization 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. "

"66. Fees in respect of any of the matters in this List, but not including fees taken in any court. "

It is not disputed that the phrase fees taken in all courts" in entry 3 includes those impositions which can prope