JUDGMENT Suhas Chandra Sen, J.: Banamali Das died on or about October 13, 1984. He left behind a Will by which he appointed his son Subrata Das the sole executor of Will. The petitioner on about 1.7.1988 applied for Probate (Probate Case No. 191 of 1988) before the District Delegate at Alipore. In the Will, the widow of Banamali Das, Sm. Uma Das has been named as the sole beneficiary-cum-legatee. The petitioner along with his application made an affidavit of assets showing the valuation of the movable assets as Rs. 4,11,011/- The value of the immovable property located at 18/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Calcutta, was shown at Rs. 2.80 lacs. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a fresh report of valuation by a Chartered Valuer who valued the immovable property at current market value of Rs. 5,67,194/-. The Probate application could not be taken up and disposed of because no valuation report was sent by Probate Deputy Collector. This application had to be made because the delay was causing great prejudice to the petitioner and his mother who was the sole beneficiary-cum-legatee. It has been stated in the petition that Sm. Uma Das, the widow was lying ill and was in financial distress.” 2. Since the respondent No. 2 was not showing any sense of urgency in the matter inspite of repeated applications:, the petitioner made a prayer for grant of Probate on the basis of depositing probate duty on self assessment. The petitioner thereafter was compelled to take a further application to the respondent No.2, the Probate Deputy Collector to finalise the valuation of the assets. But no action has been taken by the respondent No.2, the Probate Deputy Collector was most unfortunate. The petitioner has stated that the Fixed Deposits standing in the name of the deceased cannot be utilised by the widow, she is in very difficult financial condition because of total inaction on the part of the Probate Deputy Collector. 3. The petitioner has: come to know of the• judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P.M. Ashwathnarayana Setty and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., M/s. Lavina Mansion vs. State of Karnataka; A. Abdul Rahim Sherif and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., G. Ramiah vs. State of Karnataka, The City Municipal Council etc. etc. vs. State of Karnataka, State Bank of India vs. State of Rajasthan, Bank of Baroda etc. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., G. Ramiah vs. State of Karnataka, The City Municipal Council etc. etc. vs. State of Karnataka, State Bank of India vs. State of Rajasthan, Bank of Baroda etc. vs. State of Karanataka, S. Mohmood Iqbal and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. and State of Mahashtra vs. Mrs. Jyoti Nikul jariwala & Ors. and Dr. Prafulla Chandra and Anr. vs. State of Karnataka, where the Supreme Court held that in the State of Maharastra the Probate Duty cannot exceed the upper limit of the Court fees fixed by the Statute. 4. The petitioner has now made an application to pay the maximum court fee payable under the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 being the amount of Rs. 10,000/-. 5. The petitioner has contended that in so far as the West Bengal Court Fees Act has laid down an upper limit of Rs. 10,000/-. Hearing of suit and no upper limit has been laid down for payment either for Court fee in respect of probate duty, the provision of the West Bengal Court Fees Act were ultra vires the Constitution and must be struck down. 6. Since the constitutional validity of the Statute has been changed notice was sent to the Advocate General, West Bengal. 7. The aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 in Schedule-l has laid down a table of ad valorem fees leviable on the institution of suits. There is however an upper limit if a maximum fee of Rs. 10,000/- whereas there is no upper limit for Court fee on Probate of a Will or Letters of Administration with or without Will. 8. Mr. Ghosh, Advocate, on behalf of the State argued that the Supreme Court in that very judgment did not strike down the levy of unlimited court fees by the State of Karnataka and Rajasthan but merely gave certain directions to those states. His prayer was for grant of similar directions in this case. 9. From the judgment, it appears that in Rajasthan, there is no upper limit of Court fees after 1.11.61. Under the present Rajasthan Act relating to Court Fees Act at Court fee ad valorem at 5% is to be paid without any upper limit. His prayer was for grant of similar directions in this case. 9. From the judgment, it appears that in Rajasthan, there is no upper limit of Court fees after 1.11.61. Under the present Rajasthan Act relating to Court Fees Act at Court fee ad valorem at 5% is to be paid without any upper limit. Sidmilarly, in Karnataka also an ad valorem at the uniform rate of Rs. 1/- for every Rs. 10/- of the amount or value of the subject matter in dispute has been prescribed as Court fee without any upper limit. 10. Because of these special features the Supreme Court did not hold levy of court fee on grant of probate or letters of administration without any upper limit as unconstitutional whereas in the case of Maharastra the Supreme Court categorically hold : 11. Indeed, where a proceeding for grant of probate and letters of administration becomes a contentions matter, it is registered as a suit and proceeded with accordingly. If in respect of all other suits of whatever nature and complexity an upper limit of Rs. 15,000/- on the court-fee is fixed, there is no logical justification for singling out this proceeding for an ad valorem impost without the benefit of some upper limit prescribed by the same statute respecting all other litigants. The discrimination brought about by the statute, in our opinion, fails to pass the constitutional muster as rightly pointed out by the High Court. The High Court in our opinion rightly held: "There is no answer to this contention except that the legislature has not thought it fit to grant relief to the seekers of probates, whereas plaintiffs in civil suits were thought deserving of such an upper limit. The discrimination is a piece of class legislation prohibited by the guarantee of equal protection of laws embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution.” We approve this reasoning of the High Court and the decision of the High Court is sustained on this ground alone. In view of this any other ground urged against the constitutionality of the levy is unnecessary to be examined. The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment of the Bombay High Court holding levy of court fee on grant of Probete or Letters of Administration without any upper limit as unconstitutional. 12. In view of this any other ground urged against the constitutionality of the levy is unnecessary to be examined. The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment of the Bombay High Court holding levy of court fee on grant of Probete or Letters of Administration without any upper limit as unconstitutional. 12. In that view of the matter, the writ petition must succeed. The following order is passed – (a) It is declared that levy of ad valorem imposed without any upper limit in respect of grant of Probate and Letters of Administration as provided by the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 is ultra vires the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. (b) It is ordered that in all cases including the present case Probate Duty in excess of Rs. 10,000/– cannot be levied by the respondents in particular the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. (c) There will be an order or direction on the respondents including respondent No.4 that on the petitioner's depositing Rs. 10,000/- Probate Case No. 191 of 1988 be immediately taken up for hearing and disposed of in accordance with law. 13. This application is thus disposed of. There will be no orders as to costs. 14. Let a copy of the operative part of this judgment and order be given to the Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner upon his undertaking to apply for and obtain the certified copy countersigned by an Asstt. Registrar (Court). Application allowed.