1. This is an appeal against the order of the Deputy Registrar directing thepresent case to be registered as nine appeals and requiring the appellant topay nine sets of court-fees. The Deputy Registrar had relied on two cases ofthis Court, namely, Lajwanti Sial's case (Petition for Special Leave No. 673 of1959) and Kishinchand Chellaram's case (Civil Appeals No. 462 to 465 of 1960).We do not think that these precedents cover the present case.
2. In Lajwanti's case there were a number of applications under s. 66(2) ofthe Income-tax Act for reference of the same question. There were in fact anumber of separate references but they were dealt with by one judgment fromwhich the appeal to this Court arose. That was really a case of five appealsfor the common judgment must be taken to have been delivered in each of thedifferent reference cases.
3. Kishinchand Chellaram's case is also not helpful because there fourapplications by four different assesses had been made for reference of threeidentical question arising in each assessment case under s. 66(1) of theIncome-tax Act. Though it appears that there was one order of reference to theHigh Court and the High Court treated the case as a single case of reference,it could be said that there were in fact a number of references.
4. The present case however originated out of one petition under Art. 226 ofthe Constitution challenging the validity of various assessment orders.Obviously here, there was only one proceeding. It could not be said that therewere as many proceedings as there were assessment orders for the petitioner hadby a single petition challenged them all together. When an appeal is taken tothis Court from the judgment of the High Court in such a petition, it isimpossible to contend that there are more appeals than one. Therefore, theappellant before us is liable only to pay one set of court-fee and othercharges as in a single appeal. Action may be taken accordingly by the office,if necessary, by refunding the excess charges made.