A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) RE : Civil Misc. Application No. Nil of 2001, dated Nil of August, 2001. This is an application with the prayer that Court may be pleased to set aside and quash the report of the Stamp Reporter dated 18th July, 2001 along with its affirming order dated 10th August, 2001 passed by the taxing Officer scribed on the back of pages 2 and 3 of the writ paper book. ( 2 ) AFOREMENTIONED report dated 18th July, 2001 and order of the Taxing Officer dated 10th august, 2001, have obviously proceeded on information being given by the learned counsel (by giving names of the members of the petitioners Sangh) on the objection of the Stamp Reporter as follows--"report regarding sufficiency of court fee will be made after names of the Lekhpals are given. " Learned counsel for the petitioner, in a queer manner, supplied list of members by showing as if they are petitioners - by putting title of writ petition and part of writ petition (marking the pages as 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d and 1e), apparently, obtaining stamp and initials (without details of the deponent, date of swearing or verification clause ). These pages (numbers 1a to 1b) cannot be treated as part of the affidavit of the accompanying writ petition. Such a list is not admissible and liable to be ignored as waste paper apart from calling for an explanation of the Oath Commissioner Rai Anandi Prasad, for which Registrar General may take appropriate action. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner in his aforesaid Civil Misc. Application No. Nil of 2001 dated Nil of August, 2001. prayed that petition be treated as p. I. L and otherwise in the individual capacity of Krishna Mohan Srivastava (who represents uttar Pradesh Lekhpal Sangh, allahabad, as its District Secretary ). ( 4 ) THE petitioner claims writ of mandamus to ensure that respondents should allot G. P. F. Account numbers and to prepare and maintain other relevant records, interest awarded on G. P. F. amount so far credited in their respective accounts and to command the respondents to decide the representation of petitioners Sangh dated 9th July, 2001/ Annexure-5 to the petition (which has been made in the name and on behalf of the Sangh ). ( 5 ) AVERMENTS in para 2 of the petition show that petitioner Sangh represented by its District secretary through Krishna Mohan Srivastava, having its principal office at Sadar Tehsil at allahabad is a duly recognized Sangh vide State Government B. O. No. 75/4-11-A-359 dated 14. 11. 1962. District Secretary is competent to look after the interest of its Lekhpals - members of the Sangh and to seek appropriate remedy through Courts. ( 6 ) IT may be noted at the outset that, petition cannot be treated as public interest litigation as it is to espouse the matter relating to the services of the members of the Sangh. ( 7 ) PETITION has been filed in the name of Sangh, which is a recognized Sangh. It is single entity and has its own existence. Present petition, in its existing form is maintainable and the judgment rendered in the petition shall be binding on its members. There is only one petitioner and this single set of court fee, paid by the petitioner is sufficient. ( 8 ) STAMP Reporter/ Taxing Officer relying upon a Division Bench judgment dated September 22, 1997, passed by this Court in Spl. Appeal No. 255 of 1993, Shyam Sunder and others v. Meerut mandal Vikas Nigam and others, and contends that the report of Taxing Officer is final and cannot be subjected to scrutiny any more. ( 9 ) THIS special appeal was against the judgment of learned single Judge in a writ petition filed by several persons affirming decision of Taxing Officer to pay separate court fee. Special Appeal bench held that order of Taxing Officer, under Section 5 of Court Fees Act was final and could not be challenged and no appeal/revision was provided under the said Act. The Bench further held that it was few Taxing Officer to refer the matter to the Chief Justice of the High Court or to such Judge of the High Court as the Chief Justice may have appointed either generally or specially in this behalf. The Bench held that under Section 5 of the Act, decision of Taxing officer on the question of sufficiency of court fee, has been conferred finality by the Act. While rendering the said judgment, the Division Bench referred to certain judgments considering the question of maintainability of a statutory appeal under legislative enactment Act on the question of payment of court fee. While rendering the said judgment, the Division Bench referred to certain judgments considering the question of maintainability of a statutory appeal under legislative enactment Act on the question of payment of court fee. The Division Bench did not advert or refer to the question of competence of the High Court (whether a single or Division Bench) exercising its extraordinary constitutional powers under Article 226. Constitution of India. Constitution is the fountainhead of all the enactments. No legislative Act can override the Constitution and abridge its powers under Article 226. Constitution of India. See (1997) 3 SCC 261 (Pr 78-82), L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India. ( 10 ) THE contention of the Stamp Reporter as affirmed by the Taxing Officer, relying upon aforementioned Division Bench in Special Appeal of Shyam Sunder and others (supra ). In my considered opinion, cannot be sustained. High Court, while considering a petition in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, Constitution of India can entertain objection of the petitioner, in a given case, against order of Taxing Officer and adjudicate the question of the sufficiency of court fee, maintainability of the writ petition and its being in order. ( 11 ) THE instant writ petition is by a single entity (i. e. sangh) and single set of court fee paid by it is sufficient. ( 12 ) TAXING Officers report is overruled. Reliefs claimed in the above miscellaneous application are misconceived and hence application stands rejected.