HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE &

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU

WRIT PETITION No.19367 OF 2022

(Through physical mode)

Dachuri Atchi Reddy, S/o Pera Reddy, Hindu, Aged 72 yrs., retired employee, R/o Flat No. 302, 27-62-10, Aditya Apartment, Ramjet Nagar, Balaji Nagar, Stone House Peta, SPSR Nellore District. He is represented by his Special Power of attorney holder i.e petitioner No.3 and 4 others.

... Petitioner

Versus

The Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur, Prakasam District and another.

... Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner		: Sri Madala Narasinga Rao
Counsel for the respondents	:	G.P. for Law and Legislative Affairs

O R D E R

Date: 13.07.2022

(per D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, J)

This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:

"..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the "Explanation 1: where a certificate is extended under section 376 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, fee shall be computed on the amount for which a certificate is sought to be extended and the amount for which a certificate or certificates has or have already been issued at one and a half times the rates specified above, credit being given for the fee already paid" to be inapplicable due to vires and

further direct the trial Court to follow the main provision i.e., schedule 1, Article 7, clause (v) of APSV & 85 CF Act, 1956 and..."

This Court notices that a reading of the entire affidavit does not disclose the violation of any constitutional provision or any other legal provision. The petition does not question the provision on the ground that it infringes a fundamental right or that it is beyond the legislature's competence. Despite a pointed question, learned counsel could not answer which constitutional mandate was actually violated. It appears that a writ of Mandamus was actually sought. But, the words "due to vires" is added in the prayer. Nevertheless, this matter was examined and this Court finds that there is no violation of a constitutional provision. Neither the pleading nor the proof is adequate for this Court to hold that the impugned explanation in Schedule-I of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 is violative of any provision of law. This section has also been on the statute since decades and the Court Fees Act itself was enacted in 1956. This Court notices that even under the Central Court Fees Act, 1870, a similar provision is there for paying higher Court fee for extension of succession certificate.

Even otherwise, the law on the subject is very clear. In matters of fiscal statutes, the Courts will give greater latitude to the legislature while adjudicating its constitutionality. It is also clear that the power to strike down a legislation should be exercised with great care and caution and judicial restraint is called for.

2

The law on the subject was clearly summarised in the case of

Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. v. P. Laxmi Devi¹ .

Therefore, for all the above mentioned reasons, this Court holds that there are no merits in the writ petition.

The writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU,J

KLP

¹ 2008 (4) SCC 720