D. S. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THE order dated 25th January, 1993 and the report dated 30th November. 1992. appended to the petition as Annexures-viii and vi respectively, passed by the Stamp Reporter and the taxing Officer of this Court in relation to the question of sufficiency of the court-fees paid by the petitioner on the memorandum of the First Appeal No. 358 of 1990, Lalta Prasad v. Collector. Varanasi and others, are under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India. ( 2 ) BEFORE filing the memo of appeal, the petitioner obtained a report dated 8th May, 1990 on the sufficiency of the court-fees as required by Rule 3 of Chapter XI of the Rules of Court. 1952 holding the court-fees paid by the petitioner to be sufficient. The appeal was admitted by the court on 16th May. 1990. ( 3 ) LATER on, an objection being raised in that regard, the Court, vide its order dated 13th november. 1992, called for a fresh report on the sufficiency of the court-fees paid by the petitioner. Stamp Reporter Submitted report dated 30th November. 1992 holding that there was deficiency of court-fees to the tune of Rs. 99. 057. 50. On 30th November, 1992, the Court passed an order granting ten days-time to the petitioner to file objection against the report of the Stamp reporter to be considered by the Taxing Officer, declared by the Honble Chief Justice under section 5 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, hereinafter called the act. Objection and counter objection were filed and considered by the Taxing Officer. The Taxing Officer passed the order dated 25th January, 1993 upholding the report of the Stamp Reporter dated 30th November. 1992 and calling upon the petitioner to make deficiency in court-fees good. ( 4 ) THE order of the Taxing Officer dated 25th January, 1993 was considered by a Division Bench of this Court on 9th February. 1993. Acting upon the order of the Taxing Officer dated 25th january, 1993 upholding the report of the Stamp Reporter and requiring the petitioner to make the deficiency in court-fees good, and, in the absence of any prayer for time for the said purpose, the Court recalled Its order dated 16th May, 1990 admitting the first appeal of the petitioner. It recalled the subsequent interim order dated 19th May, 1991 also. It recalled the subsequent interim order dated 19th May, 1991 also. ( 5 ) THUS, the order of the Taxing Officer dated 25th January. 1993 as well as the report of the stamp Reporter dated 30th November, 1992 received seal of approval of the Division Bench, and was duly acted upon as is apparent from the act of the Court recalling its orders admitting the first appeal and granting interim relief. ( 6 ) RELYING upon the Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Smt. Gindori Bibi v. Taxing Officer and others, AIR 1973 All 490 , Sri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel of the petitioner, submits that the impugned order of the Taxing Officer is bad in law inasmuch as the taxing Officer erred in not referring the matter to the Honble Chief Justice or any other Honble judge of the Court appointed by the Honble Chief Justice either generally or specially for the purpose under Section 5 of the Act. ( 7 ) THE Court has carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case of Smt. Gindori bibi (supra) and also the ratio of the decision in the case, and is clearly of the opinion that the said decision does not lend support to the case of the petitioner in any manner, in the case of smt. Gindori Bibi (supra), the Taxing Officer, after he had decided the question of sufficiency of court-fees, was called upon by an application to refer the case for final decision to the Honble chief Justice or any other Honble Judge to be appointed by the Honble Chief Justice under section 5 of the Act and the Taxing Officer rejected the application on the ground that he had already given decision and "no question of any reference of the matter to the Court by Taxing officer arose. " Taxing Officer also expressed opinion that he had "no reason to make any reference to the Court as prayed". This order of Taxing Officer was challenged in a writ petition. The learned single Judge before whom writ petition came up entertained doubt regarding the maintainability of writ petition against the said order of Taxing Officer. Therefore, a reference was made to the Full Bench. This order of Taxing Officer was challenged in a writ petition. The learned single Judge before whom writ petition came up entertained doubt regarding the maintainability of writ petition against the said order of Taxing Officer. Therefore, a reference was made to the Full Bench. ( 8 ) THE Full Bench ruled that the Taxing Officer on being called upon to make a reference under section 5 of the Act was obliged to consider and form opinion whether the case involved question of general importance. Once he formed opinion that question was of general importance, then he was obliged to make a reference under Section 5 of the Act. The Full Bench further ruled that any opinion rendered by him on the Importance of the question may be amenable to a writ of certiorari if in forming his opinion the Taxing Officer proceeded arbitrarily and contrary to established judicial principles. ( 9 ) THE Full Bench also held that if the Taxing Officer declined to make reference under Section 5 of the Act, a writ petition would be maintainable against such an order and the Court on being satisfied about the existence of question of general importance would have jurisdiction to command the Taxing Officer to make a reference. ( 10 ) IN the Instant case, neither any prayer to make a reference under Section 5 of the Act was made nor the Taxing Officer had formed any opinion. The report of the Taxing Officer was considered by the Division Bench and the Bench acting upon the report of the Taxing Officer recalled its earlier order admitting the appeal as well as the order granting the interim order. The order of Taxing Officer stood approved and affirmed. The facts and circumstances of instant case are obviously quite different than those of Smt. Gindori Bibis case (supra ). The dictum of Full bench has no application. ( 11 ) THERE is another aspect which dissuades this Court from Intervening in the matter. Interference with the order of the Taxing Officer which has already acted upon by the Court in passing the order dated 9th February. 1993 recalling the order of admission and Interim order will have the effect of setting the order dated 9th February, 1993 of the Bench at naught. The court is afraid, this is not permissible in law. Interference with the order of the Taxing Officer which has already acted upon by the Court in passing the order dated 9th February. 1993 recalling the order of admission and Interim order will have the effect of setting the order dated 9th February, 1993 of the Bench at naught. The court is afraid, this is not permissible in law. ( 12 ) ALL told, the Court is of the opinion that upon the facts and circumstances and for the reasons given earlier, petition is devoid of merits. In the result, the petition is dismissed summarily. .