Judgment :- Government of Kerala, decided to collect a fee of Rs.2/- each from "Out Patients" while issuing Out Patient tickets (O.P. tickets) at hospitals where the system Of modern medicine or Ayurveda is followed Government issued an order (No.G.O.Ms.56/ 92/H & WD -- dated 21-4-1992) permuting such hospitals to collect the aforesaid fee from 1-6-1992. Petitioner styles himself as President of a voluntary association and he challenges the aforesaid government order in this original petition. 2. Petitioner contends that improvement of health of public being a primary duty of the Government as recognized inArt.47 of the Constitution it is wrong to collect such fees and Government should not try to make profit through government hospitals; and such collection of fees from poor citizens is contrary of public policy. Alternatively he contended that such collection, without authority of law, will hit Art.265 of the constitution. Yet another contention put forward is that collect ion of fees from patients approaching the hospitals where modern medicine or Ayurveda is followed would offend Articles 14 and 15 of the constitution, inasmuch as hospitals following homoeopathic systems are exempted from collecting such fees. 2. Government tried to justify the collection on the premise that the fee so collected would be utilised for development of the health infrastructure status and also for providing a Reference Record of treatment for each outpatient. In the impugned Government Order necessary provision has been incorporated for crediting the amount collected by a hospital to the fund of "Hospital Development Committee" where such committee is functioning. According to the government stand, T.B. and leprosy hospitals are exempted since such hospitals have a special role to play in the national programme as those diseases are to be "controlled as a national problem", besides the fact that number of hospitals far T.B., leprosy and mental health would be too meagre. Similarly causality sections in hospitals are exempted from collecting fees since it is not practical to collect such fee from patients rushing to casuality units. Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes patients arc exempted because of their social backwardness. 3. A three fold explanation is sought to be made out for exempting hospitals following homoeopathic system from such collection. First is that the number of hospitals following homoeopathic system is far less than the number of hospital institutions following modern medicines. Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes patients arc exempted because of their social backwardness. 3. A three fold explanation is sought to be made out for exempting hospitals following homoeopathic system from such collection. First is that the number of hospitals following homoeopathic system is far less than the number of hospital institutions following modern medicines. Second is that expenses for running such institutions are appreciably meagre when compared with allopathic hospitals. Third is that the section of general public following homoeopathic systems is appreciably small. 4. The main question is whether Art.265 of the Constitution is an impediment in collecting such fees. The article reads thus: "Taxes not to be imposed save by authority of law-No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law." 5. Tax is different from fees. Tax is an imposition for public purpose without reference to any service rendered by the State for any specific benefit conferred on the taxpayer. The object of levy is to raise the revenue. (vide the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha of Sri Shirur Mutt, 1954 SCR 1005). A fee is a payment levied to the services performed for the benefit of the individual while tax is paid for the common benefit conferred by Government on all citizens. A fee is a payment made for some special benefit enjoyed by the fee payer. Usually the fee would be proportional to the special benefit enjoyed. (Vide Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. v. State of Orissa (AIR 1961 SC 459)), However a levy in the nature of fee does not cease to be so merely because there is an element of compulsion involved, nor even when it has no direct relation to the service rendered. (ideShri. Admar Mutt v. Commissioner, H.R.& C.E. Department., AIR 1980 sci) The money raised through fees would be set apart or appropriated for the performance of the service for which it has been imposed. It is not merged in the general revenue of the State. 6. When the above norms are applied, the amount collected as fees from out patients is prima facie not a tax. There is no case that it is, in fact, an attempt to impose a tax and is a colourable exercise of the powers of the State. As such the embargo imposed through Art.226 of the Constitution cannot be used to stall the collection of such fees. 7. There is no case that it is, in fact, an attempt to impose a tax and is a colourable exercise of the powers of the State. As such the embargo imposed through Art.226 of the Constitution cannot be used to stall the collection of such fees. 7. Though the petitioner vaguely contended that Government Order offends Art.15 of the Constitution, it has not been seriously followed up. This may be because of the clear provision in sub-article 4 which says that nothing in the Article shall prevent the State from making any such provision for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. 8. The Government Order is made applicable to all persons except members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. The mere fact that such fee is not collected in T.B., leprosy and mental hospitals is not enough to make out a case for discrimination as for Art.14 of the Constitution. The benefit accrued thereby (if at all the exemption ensures to anyone as a benefit) would apply to all persons who are suffering from such diseases. No classification among people has been made for enjoying the exemption. The contention that patients following homoeopathic system would form themselves into a special category in the matter of payment of the fees is of no help to build a case that there is denial of equal protection of law or equality before law, as enshrined in Art.14 of the Constitution. Anyone who follows the said system of medicine is entitled to the benefit of the exemption. The choice is left to the person concerned to follow any system of medicine. Persons choosing to avail themselves of a particular system of medicine in connection with one or more ailments cannot crystallize into a class as such. They are free to switch over to any other system of medicine at any time. In the absence of any possibility of creating any classification, the me(re fact that a particular system of medicine is not included within the purview of the fee collection process is no reason to hold that there would be discrimination in the application of the Government Order. 9. Last contention is that it would be difficult for poor citizens to pay the fees. 9. Last contention is that it would be difficult for poor citizens to pay the fees. Though this is a matter for policy making authorities to ponder over, I do not find much substance in the grievance, since the amount of fee now fixed is a piffling even for a skinflint or poor with the fall in the rupee value. It is not reality to think that the amount fixed would inflict a burden to anyone. I am not impressed by the said contention either. In the result, I uphold the impugned order and dismiss this original petition.