JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, A.C.J. 1. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition, wherein Sri Balwant Singh has claimed relief under Article 226 of the Constitution are as follows. 2. On 3rd of December, 1974 Respondent No. 1 State Bank of India, Jansath, filed a claim petition u/s 11 of the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973, claiming that a sum of Rs. 1,67,389/82 p. was due from the Petitioners and Respondents Nos. 4 to 6. On the said claim petition a court lee stamp of Rs. 1.50 was affixed. Eventually the claim of the Respondent No. 1 was accepted by the Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 22nd September, 1975. 3. Aggrieved, the Petitioners preferred an appeal to the appellate authority as provided u/s 12 of the Act. The appeal so filed was also affixed with court fees stamp of Rs. 1.50. The appellate authority vide its order dated 14th December, 1976 required the Petitioners to pay an ad valorem court fees calculated at the rate of 10 per cent on the amount in respect of which he had claimed relief in the appeal. The appellate authority further directed that in case the said fees was not deposited by the Petitioners within the time allowed by it, the appeal would stand dismissed. The Petitioners questioned the validity of the order of the appellate authority dated 14th December 1976 requiring them to pay the fees calculated at the rate 10 per cent on their memorandum of appeal and have as claimed relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. After enactment of U.P. Agricultural Credit Act 1973 the State Government, acting u/s 25 of the Act, as it then stood, framed the U.P. Agricultural Credit Rules 1974. At that time Section 25 of the Act did not empower the State Government to frame rules prescribing any fees in respect of any proceeding under the Act. However, the said section was amended by U.P. Act No. XIX of 1975 and a power were given to the State Government to frame rules prescribing fees in respect of any proceeding under the Act as well. However, the said section was amended by U.P. Act No. XIX of 1975 and a power were given to the State Government to frame rules prescribing fees in respect of any proceeding under the Act as well. After the amendment made by U.P. Act XIX of 1973 the State Government framed fresh set of rules in exercise of its powers u/s 25 of the Act as amended, and by means of rules 12 and 23 it provided for payment of a fee at the rate of 10 per cent or at such other rate as the State Government in the revenue department may, from time to time fix in this behalf, on the amount claimed in the application made under the (?) of the Act. These rules came into force with effect from 12th May 1975. 5. The submission made on behalf of the Petitioner is that on 3rd of December, 1974 when the claim was made by the Respondent No. 1 before the Prescribed Authority, no fees was payable either on the claim petition or in respect of an appeal which might be filed u/s 12 of the Act. It appears that the court fees of Rs. 1.50 which had been affixed by the Bank on its Claim Petition was not because of any provision contained in U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, but ii was affixed presumably under the provisions of the Court Fees Act. The provisions of the U.P. Agricultural Credit Rules 1975 were brought in force with effect from 12th of May 1975 and have not been given any further retrospective effect. In the case of State of Bombay v. S.G. Films Exchange. 1960 SC page 980. The Supreme Court has observed that an impairment of the right of appeal, by putting a new restriction thereon or imposing a more onerous condition, is not a matter of procedure only it impairs or imperils the substantive right and an enactment which does so is not retrospective, unless it says so expressly or by necessary intendment. 6. In the aforesaid case the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where a suit had been filed prior to 1.4.1954 the date on which the Court Fees (Bombay Amendment) Act 1954, levying enhance court fees, came into force. 6. In the aforesaid case the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where a suit had been filed prior to 1.4.1954 the date on which the Court Fees (Bombay Amendment) Act 1954, levying enhance court fees, came into force. In absence of any provision in the Amending Act, giving retrospective effect to the amendment made thereby, the Supreme Court ruled that the court fees payable on the memorandum of appeal filed after the relevant date i.e. 1.4.1954 would be according to the law enforce at the time of filing of the suit (which was prior to the relevant date) and not according to the law in force at the date of filing of the memorandum of appeal. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Bombay's case (Supra), it is obvious that in the instant case also, as the claim u/s 11 of the Act was filed by the Bank on 3rd of December, 1974, the amount of fees payable in the appeal filed by the Petitioners would also continue to be governed by the law as it was enforce on 3rd of December, 1974 and not by the law amended statutory provision as they stood on the date on which the Petitioners filed the appeal unless of course there is something in the statute itself to indicate that it was intended to be effective retrospectively with effect from 3rd of December, 1974. 7. We have carefully gone through the entire set of rules and we do not find that there is any express provision therein which makes these rules to operate retrospectively with effect from any date prior to 12th of May 1975. We also do not find anything therein to indicate that the rule making authority, by necessary implication, intended that these rules were to operate retrospectively and to govern the proceedings which had been initiated as far back as September, 1974. 8. We are accordingly satisfied that the order dated 14th of December, 1976 passed by the appellate authority requiring the Petitioners to pay ad valor fee calculated at the rate of 10 per cent on the subject matter of the appeal, cannot be sustained. The said order is accordingly quashed and the appellate authority is directed to proceed to decide the appeal filed by the Petitioners in accordance with law. The said order is accordingly quashed and the appellate authority is directed to proceed to decide the appeal filed by the Petitioners in accordance with law. Is the matter has been now pending for quite some time; the appellate authority may take steps to dispose of the said appeal as early as possible. Parties to bear their own costs.