JUDGMENT - H. SURESH, J.:----Mr. Desai for defendants 1 and 2 hands in a draft amendment to the Notice of Motion. 2. P.C. amendment allowed. Defendants 1 and 2 to carry out the amendment during the course of the day. 3. The motion is heard on the basis that the amendment is carried out. 4. It is high time, we have a judicial audit of the Office of the Court Receiver. Lord Chancellor, who initially conceived the idea of Receiver, in his auxiliary jurisdiction, could never have envisaged the office of the Court Receiver. What ought to have been just and convenient has now become an inevitable instrument of oppression in many instances. The Office of the Court Receiver functions by and large in the fashion of long discarded and discredited management companies, the primary object of equitable aid in the cause of justice being a total casualty. The Court Receiver and the staff are Government servants and they are paid their salary. Their duties are prescribed. And yet our rules provides for fees on percentage basis. This is over and above the expenses to be paid by the parties. The Court Receiver has a panel of values, architects, accountants and auctioneers. Their fees are being paid on a scale prescribed administratively, with no relation to the cause that is before the Court, not to the time and effort involved, but all based on the valuation of the property. I always thought that Court Receiver was no private enterprise but an integral part of judicial system imbued with sense of justice at every stage. The sooner we realise this, the better it is, for, the office of the Court Receiver has become a source of major drain for costs in very many litigations. 5. Now, to the facts of the present Notion of Motion. The suit is a suit for dissolution of a firm. By an order dated 17th December, 1981 Court Receiver was appointed receiver in respect of the assets of the partnership firm. Sometime in 1986, a question arose before the Court Receiver as to whether Court Receiver would be liable to pay the Wealth Tax. It was decided to take legal opinion. It was opined that the Court Receiver would be liable to pay Wealth-Tax. It was, therefore, suggested that for the purpose of determination of the Wealth-Tax payable, the property has to be valued. It was decided to take legal opinion. It was opined that the Court Receiver would be liable to pay Wealth-Tax. It was, therefore, suggested that for the purpose of determination of the Wealth-Tax payable, the property has to be valued. The Court Receiver appointed Messrs. Parelkar Dallas as Architects for the valuation of the partnership property situated at Lonawala for Wealth-tax purposes. A representative of the Architects visited the site on 21st November, 1986. That was the only inspection the Architects had. Thereafter, the Architects asked for certain papers from the office of the Court Receiver. According to the Architects, they did not get all the papers. But whatever papers the architects had collected, on the basis of which they prepared a report dated 24th February, 1987, the Architects valued the property at Rs. 60,64,500/-. Along with the report, the Architects preferred a Bill as per the scale prescribed in the office of the Court Receiver, at Rs. 30,970/-. 6. When the report was received and a meeting was called by the Court Receiver. Defendants 1 and 2 found fault with the valuation as also with the Architects, Bill for his fees. Certain further correspondence ensued between the Architects and the Court Receiver as also between the Architects and the parties. Finally, defendants 1 and 2 have taken out the present Notice of Motion. The prayers are that the valuation report be set aside and the Court Reciever should be directed to obtain a fresh report on the valuation from another Architect. The other prayer is that the bill preferred by the Architect is exorbitant and the same should not be paid. As the motion was taken out, the defendant's prayer was that the fees of the Architects be not paid till the hearing and final disposal of Notice of Motion. However, as of today defendants have moved an amendment wherein they have prayed for further directions that the violation report be set aside and the direction of the Court Receiver to make payment to Messrs. Parelkar Dallas, as the Architects, as per their Bill dated 24th February, 1987 be set aside. 7. I have heard the Advocates including the Advocate for the Architects. I have also seen the report made by Messrs. Parelkar Dallas. To say the least, the report is a perfunctory report. Parelkar Dallas, as the Architects, as per their Bill dated 24th February, 1987 be set aside. 7. I have heard the Advocates including the Advocate for the Architects. I have also seen the report made by Messrs. Parelkar Dallas. To say the least, the report is a perfunctory report. Admittedly, the Architect had seen the site only once and thereafter they prepared the report sitting in their Chamber and valued the property as follows : the bungalow, the car shed and an outhouse, situated on the property are valued at about Rs. 2,52,570. After depreciation, the same is valued at Rs. 37,885/-. As far as the valuation of the land is concerned, they found that the property has been dived into 65 residential plots, the total area being about 75,331.35 sq. metres. They were informed that the Court Receiver had sold from plots in December 1984, at prices ranging from Rs. 146 to Rs. 190 per sq. metre. Therefore, they said that an average rate of Rs. 80/- per sq. metre would be a reasonable price. Hence, they multiplied the total area by Rs. 80 per sq. metre and arrived at the figure of Rs. 60,26,548/-. Hence the total value of land and the structures would be Rs. 60,64,500/-. And that is the report. On the basis of this valuation, a bill is sent. The Bill says, on the first sum of Rs. 10,000/- they have calculated professional fees at 2 per cent, and on the next Rs. 1,00,000/-, they have calculated at 1/2 per cent, and on the balance which is about Rs. 59,54,500/- at 1/2 per cent. And that is how, the total figure of Rs. 30,970/- has been arrived at. This is sought to be justified on the basis of scale of fees prescribed in the Office of the Court Receiver. The relevant portion of the scale of fees is as follows : (i) 2 per cent on the first Rs. 10,000/- (with a minimum of Rs. 200/). (ii) 1 per cent on residue of the value upto Rs. 1,00,000/-, and (iii) 1/2 per cent on the residue over Rs. The relevant portion of the scale of fees is as follows : (i) 2 per cent on the first Rs. 10,000/- (with a minimum of Rs. 200/). (ii) 1 per cent on residue of the value upto Rs. 1,00,000/-, and (iii) 1/2 per cent on the residue over Rs. 1,00,000/-." The argument is that when the Court Receiver's Office appointed the Architects, that was on the basis of the scale of fees prescribed by the Court Receiver and that the Architects would never have accepted the work of valuation, if the Court Receiver's Office was not willing to pay as per the scale of fees. 8. It appears that the scale of fees of Architects on the list of the Court Receiver was prescribed with effect from 1-10-1983 by the learned Administrative Judge and the learned Chief Justice of this Court and that since then the Court Receiver has been paying the fees as per the said scale of fees. 9. Mr. Desai appearing for the plaintiff submitted that the scale of fees prescribed by the High Court is for the purpose of valuation for sale of the properties and not for Wealth-tax purposes. He submitted that fees should vary according to the purpose for which valuation has to be done. He also submitted that there are number of other architects in the City who are prepared to charge much less than what Messrs. Parelkar and Dallas had done in the present case. In that connection, defendants 1 and 2 relied on a letter dated 8th October, 1987 issued by Messrs. Sykes and Divecha, Architects, wherein they have shown the scale of fees for valuation for the Wealth-tax purpose prescribed by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, and they are as follows : "On the first Rs. 50,000/- of the property so valued : 1/2 per cent of the value. On the next Rs. 1,00,000/- of the property so valued : 1/4 per cent of the value. On the balance of property so valued : 1/8 per cent of the value." Mr. Desai has also relied on a notification (Exhibit 3 to the affidavit in support of the 1st defendant) issued by the Government of India, which again shows that for the purpose of valuation for Wealth-tax purposes, the scale of professional charges would be as follows : "On the first Rs. Desai has also relied on a notification (Exhibit 3 to the affidavit in support of the 1st defendant) issued by the Government of India, which again shows that for the purpose of valuation for Wealth-tax purposes, the scale of professional charges would be as follows : "On the first Rs. 50,000/- of the property so valued ; 1/2 per cent of the value On the next Rs. 1,00,000/- of the property so valued : 1/4 per cent of the value. On the balance of property so valued : 1/8 per cent of the value." That is to say, the same scale of fees as stated by Messrs. Sykess Divecha the Architects. On the basis of this scale of fees, the fees in the present case would have been about Rs. 7,893/-. He has also in his rejoinder relied on a letter dated 9th November, 1987 issued by Messrs. Dabhawala Architects, Consultants and Designers Pvt. Ltd. and they too have stated that the scale of fees to be charged by the Approved Valuers would be the same i.e. as stated by Messrs. Sykes and Divecha and/or as stated in the said gazette notification issued by the Central Government of India. 10. Mr. Tulzapurkar appearing for the Architects pointed out that in the present case, the fees have been prescribed by the learned Administrative Judge and the learned Chief Justice of this Court and the Court Receiver has permitted the fees as per the scale and it is on the representation as made by the Court Receiver, his clients accepted this work of valuation. He submitted that but for the representation as contained in the scale of fees, his clients would not have accepted this work. He also submitted that his clients are reputed Architects and they have been on the panel of this High Court for the last several years and, therefore, their fees cannot be cut down by the Court. 11. In my view it is not open to any party to say that any alleged representation made by the Court Receiver is binding on the Court. Court Receiver is not an agent of the Court. He is an officer of the Court. Whenever a party deals with an officer of the Court in relation to any suit, it is implicit that the same is subject to such orders, or directions, as the Court may give. Court Receiver is not an agent of the Court. He is an officer of the Court. Whenever a party deals with an officer of the Court in relation to any suit, it is implicit that the same is subject to such orders, or directions, as the Court may give. In the present case, there is no express representation by the Court Receiver. But even if there was any such representation, it is always subject to scrutiny by the Court. 12. It is true that the fees may be prescribed administratively by the learned Administrative Judge and the learned Chief Justice for the purpose of valuation for sale of properties. That may be for the general guidance of the Court Receiver. But that cannot bind the Court in its judicial functions. When Court Receiver is appointed as receiver in any suit, he acts subject to such directions and order as may be given by the Court, judicially. It is in that sense, the property becomes custodia legis. No Court, in its judicial conscience can be subject to any direction from any other authority or agency. 13. Mr. Tulzapurkar also submitted that it is not proper for the Court to set at naught the scale of fees prescribed by the Office of the Court Receiver. He also submitted that in that event the Court Receiver's Officer may not get the assistance and services of able and efficient Architects and Valuers. I do not agree with the submissions made by Mr. Tulzapurkar. I take it that there are still amongst us, in the society, a large number of professional brothers and sisters, may be Advocates, Architects, Accountants, or Valuers, who are not motivated by considerations of money only. As long as there is concern for justice in the society, we can always find able and efficient men who would not let down the Court in the cause of justice. May be, a Parelkar or a Dallas may go, but others will come and the cause of justice will not suffer in that behalf. In my view whenever Court Receiver's Office fixes fees, the fees so prescribed must be commensurate with the work, the time and the effort that are put in. The time of senior architect or an Advocate, or a valuer, may be more precious than that of a junior. In my view whenever Court Receiver's Office fixes fees, the fees so prescribed must be commensurate with the work, the time and the effort that are put in. The time of senior architect or an Advocate, or a valuer, may be more precious than that of a junior. Still that cannot justify charging, on the valuation of the property, without any relation to the service. If permitted, that would be plain exploitation. It may be, outside the percincts of the Court, in private dealings the Architects and Valuers may charge their fees, in such manner as they like. That does not mean that we should prescribe the same scale of fees. When they associate themselves with the Court they cannot forget that they have been requested to render assistance in the cause of justice. There is no compulsion and the Court will remunerate them in such reasonable manner as the Court thinks proper. 14. In the present case, as I said, the report is prepared for the sake of a report. The Architects could not have devoted more than a few hours for preparing the report. The Bill is just exorbitant. But since, I am inclined to reject the whole report, there is no question of paying any fees to them. 15. In the result, I pass the following order : ORDER Report made by Messrs. Parelkar Dallas dated 24th February, 1987 stands set aside. Consequently, they are not entitled to their fees and the Court Receiver will not pay the fees to the said Architects, I further direct the Court Receiver to call a meeting of the parties and to appoint another Architect for the purpose of valuation for Wealth-tax purposes. There will be no order as to costs. Order accordingly. -----