Alok Aradhe, J.:-

In this writ petition, the petitioner who claims himself to be a social worker and a businessman, impugns the validity of provisions of the Court Fee (M.P. Amendment) Act, 2008 in so far as it substitutes Article 11 (a) (i) in the Second Schedule appended to the Court Fees Act, 1870. This case has been heard along with a bunch of other cases involving the same issue. Thus, this decision will govern all these cases. The other cases referred above are Writ Petitions No. 1796 of 2007, 3437 of 2007, 3804 of 2007, 3872 of

2007, 8611 of 2008 and 14738 of 2008.

2. Under Article 11 (a) (i) of the Court Fees Act,as amended by M.P. Act No. 6 of 2008, in an appeal filed against an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short 'MACT'), the claimant is required to pay ad valorem Court Fee at the prescribed rate, which at present is 10%, on the difference between the amount of compensation awarded by MACT and the amount claimed in the appeal. The aforesaid amendment has come into force w.e.f. 2-4-2008. The relevant extract of the Court Fee (M.P. Amendment) Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2008') reads as under :-

"(ii) In Article 11, for clause (a) and entry relating thereto, the following clause and entries relating thereto shall be substituted, namely :-

(a) when presented to the High Court-

(i) by the claimant for ten per cent of the enhancement of the amount enhanced amount claimed of award passed by the Motor in appeal. Accident Claims Tribunal

(ii) in matters other than sub- Thirty rupees." clause (i) above.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Amendment Act, 2008 in so far as it substitutes Article 11 (a) (i) in the Second Schedule of the Act is discriminatory as only the claimant is required to pay the ad valorem Court-fee on the enhanced amount of compensation whereas, the Insurance Company and the owner can file an appeal on fixed Court-fee. It is further submitted that prescription of ad valorem Court-fee without upper limit is arbitrary. It is also urged that excessive levy in the form of Court-fee at the rate of 10% of the enhanced amount claimed in appeal would amount to denial of access to justice. It is further urged that such an amendment cannot be introduced by the State Legislature with a view to cut-short the litigation. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decisions of Supreme Court in Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kokilaben Chandravadan and others, AIR 1987 SC 1184, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others, AIR 2004 SC 1531, Adhunik Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd., and others Vs. State ofRajasthan and another, 1989 (Supp) 1 SCC 656, State ofHaryana Vs. Smt. Darshan Devi and others, (1979) 2 SCC 236, M/s. Central Coal Fields Ltd. and another Vs. M/s Jaiswal Coal Co. and others, 1980 (Supp) SCC 471 and Mahadev Naik Vs. State ofKarnataka and another etc., AIR 2002 Karnataka 338.

4. On the other hand, learned Advocate General for the respondents submitted that Court-fee as per the amended provision will have to be paid only when the claimant' wants to file an appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation already awarded by the MACT. Care has been taken to provide that where the claim for compensation is dismissed by the MACT, the claimant can file an appeal on the fixed nominal Court-fee. It is further submitted that large numbers of frivolous appeals claiming enhancement of compensation are being filed every year due to which prompt disposal of other bonafide appeals is being delayed/hampered. The concept of quid pro quo differentiating fee from tax has been mellowed down almost to the point of oblivion by the Supreme Court. And, in any case even that concept has not to be seen with regard to individual litigant or individual case, but there should be only a broad co-relation between the totality of fee and totality of expenses on the services rendered. In this connection, lear