Judgment:
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Ag. C.J.
1. Common question arises for consideration in all these cases, hence we are disposing of the same by a common judgment.
2. Legislative competence of the State in empowering the Government to levy additional court fee in respect of appeals or revisions to the Tribunals and appellate authorities under Section 76(1) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 was questioned before the learned single Judge without success. Though appeal was preferred against the various findings of the learned single Judge including the findings regarding legislative competence of the State to impose such a levy learned Counsel appearing for the appellant did not dispute the legislative competence of the State to levy the fee as per Section 76 of the Court Fees Act.
3. Counsel for the appellant Sri. A.K. Jayasankar however contended that imposition of levy by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the Court Fees Act vide SRO No. 226/02, is disproportionately high which partakes the character of a tax, which the State Government cannot levy as per scheme of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the apex court in Government of Madras v. Zenith Lamp & Electricals Ltd. : [1973]2SCR973 , Secretary to Government of Madras v. P.R. Srimmulu and Anr. : AIR1996SC767 , Hoechst Pharmaceutical Ltd, v. State of Bihan : [1985]154ITR64(SC) and Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Shrey Mercantile (P) Ltd. : AIR2005SC1879 , to' establish his contention. Sri. E.P.Govindan, counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C). 35329 of 2004 placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Koluthara Exports Ltd. v. State of Kerala 2002 (1) KLT 658 (SC) and contended that the levy of additional court fee has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved and there is no quid pro quo on levy of fee assuming the character of a tax.
4. Sri. Raju Joseph, Special Government Pleader (Taxes) placed reliance on the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent in WP(C). No. 20020 of 2004 and submitted that as per the rule, the fund shall be utilized for making provision for working space for the Advocates' Clerks, resting place and other facilities for the parties and witnesses attending the Court, conducting Legal Aid Camps for people interested in the Legal Service, expenditure for engaging Advocates for special cases, publication relating to legal issues and important decisions of the Kerala High Court to create legal awareness among people of the State and such other matters as the committee may feel necessary to provide efficient legal service for the people of the State. Counsel submitted that the amount collected by way of court fee under Article 16 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act is generally used for the maintenance of Tribunals and for the efficient functioning of the Tribunals and for other related matters.
5. We are in this case concerned only with the question as to whether the levy of fee is disproportionately high warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act was enacted to amend and consolidate the law relating to court fees and valuation of suits in the State of Kerala. Chapter VIII of the Act deals with Legal Benefit Fund. Section 76(l) of the Act enables the State Government to levy additional court fee in respect of appeals or revisions to Tribunals or appellate authorities, other than civil and criminal courts, at a rate not exceeding one per cent of the amount involved in the dispute in cases where it-is capable of valuation and in other cases at a rate not exceeding one hundred rupees for each appeal or revision. Sub-section (2) of Section 76 deals with the constitution of a legal benefit fund. The proceeds of the additional court fee levied and collected under Sub-section (1) of Section 76 has to be credited to this legal benefit fund. Further 50% of the court fee levied and collected on mukhtarnama or vakalathnama under Article 16 of Schedule II of this Act has also to be credited to the legal benefit fund. Sub-section (3) of Section 76 specifically stipulates that the fund constituted under Sub-section (2) shall be applied and utilised for the purpose of providing an efficient legal service for the people of the State and to provide ' social security measures for the legal profession. Sub-section (4) of Section 76 authorises the Government to prescribe rules, so that legal service to the people may be made more efficient and to provide social security measures for legal profession.
6. State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 76 of the Court Fees Act 1959 read with Section 85 of the Act framed the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund Rules, 1991. Rule 4 provides for the establishment of Trustee Committee. The Trustee Committee shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire and hold property. Trustee Committee shall consist of the Advocate General of Kerala, the Secretary of the Bar Council, two members of the Bar Council nominated by the Bar Council, Secretary of the Board of Revenue (LR), a nominee of the High Court and the Secretary of the Law Department. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 says that the amount of additional court fee levied and collected under Sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the Act shall be added to the Fund as and when such additional court fees are levied and collections are made and the amount will also be made available to the Law Secretary during the beginning of every financial year based on consolidated accounts of collection made in the previous year. The fund shall be deposited in the Public Deposit account as 'Fund' in the District Treasury, Thiruvananthapuram in the name of the Legal Benefit Fund Trustee Committee constituted under Rule 4. Rule 11 stipulates that the amount to be credited to the Fund under Section 76 of the Act shall be collected by means of court fee stamps stamped with the words 'Legal Benefit Fund' in the required number of different denominations of Court Fee Stamps of 50 paise, Re. l, Rs. 2, Rs. 5 and Rs. 100 while issuing the same from Treasury Officers and the sale proceeds thereof shall be credited to a particular Head of Account. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 stipulates that the amount available in the Fund as on 31st March of every year, shall be equally apportioned for the purposes of providing efficient legal service for the people of the State and to provide social security measures for the legal profession The amount intended to provide for social security measures for the legal profession, shall be entrusted to the Secretary, Bar Council of Kerala who is the Convener of the Advocate Welfare Fund for crediting the same to that Fund constituted under the Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1980 for being utilized in accordance with the provision of that Act. Rule 12 stipulates that the matters for which expenditure may be incurred for the purpose of providing an efficient legal service for the people of the State may include provision for working space for the Advocates' Clerks; resting place and other facilities for the parties and witnesses attending the courts; conducting legal aid camps for people interested in the legal service; expenditure for engaging advocate in special cases; publications relating to legal issues and important decisions of the Kerala High Court to create legal awareness among people of the State and such other matters as the Committee may feel necessary for providing an efficient legal service for the people of the State.
7. The object and purpose of the legal benefit fund is laudable. Article 39A introduced by the 42nd Amendment stipulates that State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity and shall in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. The Government, we have already indicated, is collecting fee, which forms part of the Legal Benefit Fund and it cannot be characterised as a tax. The difference between tax and fee has been dealt with in several cases by the Apex Court. The Apex Court in P.M. Ashwathanarayana Setty v. State of Karnataka : AIR1989SC100 held that if the essential character of the impost is that some special service is intended or envisaged as a quid pro quo to the class of citizens which is intended to be benefited by the service and there is a broad and general correlation between the amount so raised and the expenses involved in providing the service, the impost would partake the character of a fee . Reference may also be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Secretary to Government of Madras v. P.R. Sriramulu : AIR1996SC767 and Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Shrey Mercantile (P) Ltd. : AIR2005SC1879 . The court held that the correlation between the amount raised through the 'fee' and the expenses involved in providing the services need not be examined with a view to ascertaining any accurate, arithematical equivalence or precision in the correlation but it would be sufficient that there is a broad and general correlation. Looking at the object and purpose of the Legal Benefit fund we are not prepared to say that there is no relation between the court fee charged and the services rendered and the levy of fee is not disproportionately high.
8. The legal benefit fund is intended to provide efficient legal service for the people of the State and to provide social security measures for the legal profession. Court fee collected under Article 16 of the Schedule II of the Act is meant for maintenance of Tribunals and for its efficient functioning. Therefore the court fee under Article 16 of Schedule II of the Act cannot be equated with the amount collected by way of additional court fee as per Sub-section (1) of Section 76. Only 50% of the court fee levied and collected on mukhtarnama or vakalathnama under Article 16 of Schedule II of the Act would be credited to the legal benefit fund and the entire amount collected under Sub-section (1) of Section 76 would be credited to the legal benefit fund which would be utilized for providing efficient legal service for the people of the State and to provide social security measures for the legal profession. Though Section 76 enables the State Government to levy additional Court fee at a rate not exceeding one per cent of the amount involved in the dispute the State Government in its wisdom felt that they need collect only 0.5% of the total amount involved in the dispute in cases where it is capable of valuation and in other cases though Sub-section (1) of Section 76 enables the State Government to levy at a rate not exceeding one hundred rupees for each appeal or revision the State Government is demanding only fifty rupees in each of such cases. Rules have been made sufficient safeguards against misutilisation of the fund. Rule 13 of the rules stipulates that the accounts of the Trustee Committee shall be audited anually by the Local Fund Audit Department. The accounts of the Trustee Committee, as certified by the auditor together with the audit report thereon shall be forwaded to the Government by the Trustee Committee and the Government may issue such directions as it deems fit to the Trustee Committee in respect thereof. Circular No. 1/04 issued by the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in the light of the Government Notification SRO.No. 225/02 and the clarification issued by the State Government vide letter No. 16527/G3/200/Law dt. 24.3.2003 by which appeals and revisions to the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax & Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal would attract additional court fees under the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. It is for the said purpose the above mentioned circular dated 12-2-2004 was issued by the Chairman of the Tribunal. The purpose and object of such additional fee has been specifically stated in the statutory rules. Needless to say, in order to achieve the above purpose fees have to be levied. Going by the service sought to be rendered to people of the State for an efficient legal service and to provide social security measures we are not prepared to say that the levy is disproportionately high.
9. In any view, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not justified in holding so when we consider the object and purpose of the constitution of the legal benefit fund. Under such circumstance we find no merit in the Writ Appeal and Writ Petitions and the same would stand dismissed.