JUDGMENT Pratap Kumar Ray,J. This writ petition has been moved by an advocate of this High Court at Calcutta who is a member of Bar Association, High Court, Calcutta, as a public interest litigation, on issue of applicability of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 to the Courts situated at Andaman & Nicobar Islands, which are under the jurisdiction of High Court at Calcutta in terms of the provision of Calcutta High Court (Extension of Jurisdiction) Act, 1953. It is contended in the writ application that earlier till 1991 all litigants who were resident of Andaman & Nicobar Islands used to file cases in the Calcutta High Court and West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 was applicable. But from November 1991, the Appellate Side Rules, 1991 came into force and a Circuit Bench of the Calcutta High Court was set up at Port Blair, wherein the Court Fees provision was introduced in terms of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970. The said Court Fees Act got amended on 18th October, 2002 and due to such amendment the litigants who are resident of Andaman & Nicobar Islands are being compelled to pay the higher court fees in terms of said West Bengal Amendment. It is further contended that the applicability of West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 in respect of the litigation filed by the residents of Andaman & Nicobar Islands in the respective lower judiciary as well as in the Circuit Bench of High Court at Calcutta situated at Port Blair within the Andaman & Nicobar Islands was illegal as the Andaman & Nicobar Islands being a Union Territory administered by the Hon’ble President of India under Article 239 of the Constitution of India, does not permit such. 2. A further grievance has been raised that High Court at Calcutta by exercising its executive power cannot extend the provision of West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 in respect of the matters relating to Andaman & Nicobar Islands so far as the litigation in the different Courts situated at said Union Territory including the Circuit Bench of the High Court at Calcutta. 3. 3. The Hon’ble Chief Justice of High Court at Calcutta is a party respondent no.1 in this writ proceeding along with the High Court at Calcutta, respondent no.2, State of West Bengal, Union of India, Lieutenant Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Registrar, Circuit Bench at Port Blair, District- Andaman. 4. This writ application has been opposed by the respondent no.1 and 2, the High Court Administration, by filing an affidavit. A preliminary point has been taken about maintainability of the writ application besides the other legal questions opposing the writ application. It is the stand of the respondent no.1 and 2 aforesaid that petitioner, an advocate practicing in the High Court at Calcutta and a member of the Bar Association of the High Court, Calcutta situated at city Kolkata, has no locus standi to move this writ application challenging the applicability of the West Bengal Court Fees Act as he is neither a party aggrieved nor a party interested and the parameters of filing of public interest litigation also have not been fulfilled. As the preliminary question of locus standi has been taken as a point, this Court without dealing with the issue on merit, first decides the question of maintainability. 5. It is an admitted fact from the writ application that petitioner in the status of his professional activity intended to bring the matter for adjudication in the nature of public interest litigation. Averments have not made about any case and/or of any litigant who is actually could be said as party aggrieved in the matter. 5. It is an admitted fact from the writ application that petitioner in the status of his professional activity intended to bring the matter for adjudication in the nature of public interest litigation. Averments have not made about any case and/or of any litigant who is actually could be said as party aggrieved in the matter. The prayer of the writ applications are such: “a) Leave may be granted by this Hon’ble Court to file this Public Interest Litigation before this Hon’ble Court; b) A writ in the nature of declaration declaring that the provisions of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 and amendment of 2002 under the West Bengal Court Fees (Amendment) Act, 2002 is not applicable to Calcutta High Court while exercising Jurisdiction under the Calcutta High Court (Extension of Jurisdiction) Act, 1963 in respect of matters relating of Andaman & Nicobar Island and by executive order of the Hon’ble High Court, the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 cannot be extended in respect of matter relating to Andaman & Nicobar Islands while exercising the jurisdiction over the Andaman & Nicobar Island under Calcutta High Court Extension of Jurisdiction Act, 1953; c) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to cancel rescind and/or withdraw the purported decision of the Registry of Calcutta High Court to extend the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 as amended, relating to Calcutta High Court while exercising jurisdiction under the Calcutta High Court (Extension of Jurisdiction) Act, 1953 and the Registrar of this Hon’ble Court may be directed not to reject or the application appeal for non-payment of Court fees under the West Bengal court Fees Act, 1970 as amended on 28.12.2002 and accept all applications appeals on payment of the Court Fees Act, 1870 as amended for Andaman & Nicobar Islands; d) A writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to certify and transmit the entire records relating to applicability of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 including the amendment thereof, under West Bengal Court Fees Amendment Act, 2002 for Calcutta High Court under Calcutta High Court (Extension of Jurisdiction) Act, 1953 so that conscionable justice may be done by setting aside and/or quashing the same; e) Alternatively declare the provisions of the West Bengal Court Fees (Amendment) Act, 2002 is ultra vires to the provision of Article 240 of the Constitution of India and the West Bengal Legislature has no jurisdiction to enact law relating to Andaman & Nicobar Islands; f) Rule (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) above; g) An interim order of injunction restraining the respondents and each one of them from giving any effect and/or further effect to the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 and amendment in 2002 referred to in para 16 hereof pertaining to matters of Andaman & Nicobar Islands by Calcutta High Court only for the filing of appeal, application, revision lodging Caveats, filing Vakalatnama appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent including writ proceedings under Article 226/227 of the Constitution and appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent while exercising the Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court under the Calcutta High Court (Extension of Jurisdiction) Act, 1953, h) And interim order restraining the Registry of the Calcutta High Court to reject appeal and application for non-payment of Court Fees under the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 in respect of matters relating to Andaman & Nicobar Islands;” 6. From the pleading of the writ application it appears that in respect of the cases which are being filed in the different Courts within the territorial jurisdiction of Andaman & Nicobar Islands including the Circuit Bench of the High Court at Calcutta situated at Andaman & Nicobar Islands, the Court Fees has been raised by applicability of the said West Bengal Court Fees Amendment Act, 2002 by a decision of the High Court at Calcutta. The Court fees are paid by the litigants and not by the advocate. Litigants could be said as party aggrieved for any excessive Court fees as introduced by application of West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 and its amendment by Act 2002. Hence, so far as the payments of Court fees is concerned it is clear position that an advocate engaged by the litigant cannot be said as party aggrieved or party interested in the matter. Furthermore when a case is being filed, the concerned Registrar of the concerned Court identifies Court fees issue and in the event of non-payment of proper Court fees the order is passed by the competent Court of law directing to pay the Court fees to cure the defect which could be a cause of action for challenging the West Bengal Court Fees Amendment Act, 2002 and its applicability thereon in respect of a litigation filed in the concerned Court situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Andaman & Nicobar Islands. An individual litigant accordingly may have grievance on applicability of the said West Bengal Court Fees Act as and when such situation will arise in connection with his litigation filed by him and if any order is passed directing him to deposit enhanced Court fees introduced in terms of West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 and its amendment effective in terms of Amendment Act of 2002. 7. When an advocate is entitled to file any public interest litigation expousing the cause of others, is not, at all, res integra. In the case of Vinoy Kumar Vs. 7. When an advocate is entitled to file any public interest litigation expousing the cause of others, is not, at all, res integra. In the case of Vinoy Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 2001 SC 1739 , the locus standi to file a writ petition by an advocate was answered negatively by the Apex Court in the language as discussed in paragraph 3 of the said judgement, which reads such: “In the instant case the petitioner had not filed the petition in public interest and did not disclose the circumstances which prevented the affected persons from approaching the Court. In the discharge of his professional obligation, the petitioner-Advocate is not obliged to file the writ petition on behalf of his clients. No circumstance was mentioned in the petition which allegedly incapacitated the affected persons from filing the writ petition. Section 30 of the Advocates Act, only entitles an Advocate to practice the profession of law and not to substitute himself for his client. The filing of the writ petition in his own name, being not a part of the professional obligation of the Advocate, the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition holding that the petitioner-Advocate had no locus standi." 8. The parameters of filing the public interest litigation has been discussed in the case of Balco Employees’ Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India & Ors, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 333 . Paragraph 78 of the judgment reads such: “While PIL initially was invoked mostly in cases connected with the relief to the people and the weaker sections of the society and in areas where there was violation of human rights under Article 21, but with the passage of time, petitions have been entertained in other spheres. Prof. S.B. Sathey has summarized the extent of the jurisdiction which has now been exercised in the following words: “PIL may, therefore, be described as satisfying one or more of the following parameters. These are not exclusive but merely descriptive: -Where the concerns underlying a petition are not individualist but are shared widely by a large number of people (bonded labour, under trial prisoners, prison inmates). -Where the affected persons belong to the disadvantaged sections of society (women, children, bonded labour, unorganized labour etc.). -Where judicial law making is necessary to avoid exploitation (inter-country adoption, the education of the children of the prostitutes). -Where the affected persons belong to the disadvantaged sections of society (women, children, bonded labour, unorganized labour etc.). -Where judicial law making is necessary to avoid exploitation (inter-country adoption, the education of the children of the prostitutes). -Where judicial intervention is necessary for the protection of the sanctity of democratic institutions (independence of the judiciary, existence of grievances redressal forums). -Where administrative decisions related to development are harmful to the environment and jeopardize people’s right to natural resources such as air or water. 9. In an unreported case of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court registered as W.P. No.592 of 2003, one Tirthankar Das, an advocate of this Court, assailed the construction works undertaken at both sides of the Eastern Metropolitan Bye Pass by approval of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation for private commercial project on the ground of environment degradation and/or deficiency. This Court observed while dealing with the case to this effect: “We fail to understand what prompted the petitioner, who is not even a resident in or abound the area to file the present writ petition. The petitioner is a practicing advocate of this court, how he is interested in construction at E.M. Bye Pass.” 10. Public interest litigation, its identity and applicability contour were addressed by the Apex Court in several judgments, namely, Kushum Lata Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2006 (6) SCC 180 , Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2005 (1) SCC 590 followed in Kushum Lata (Supra). The summary of such is that for breach of Fundamental Rights of the persons and/or the community suffering from any substantial injury and/or from any arbitrary action, who have no economic capacity/resources and/or who are helpless to agitate the matter in the Court of law, a group of persons or any registered society or even an individual person may approach the writ Court for necessary relief for the purpose of adjudication of their grievance in the angle of social justice concept. 11. In a nut shell public interest litigation concept has taken a shape to open a forum to the citizen who due to the economic problem and/or social and educational background are not in a position to agitate their grievance to the Court of law. 11. In a nut shell public interest litigation concept has taken a shape to open a forum to the citizen who due to the economic problem and/or social and educational background are not in a position to agitate their grievance to the Court of law. The concept has a breeding ground on social justice field for rendering social and economic justice to those persons who have no means to oppose the arbitrary State action on grievance of breach of Fundamental Rights under Chapter three of the Constitution of India. 12. Having regard to such settled legal position and parameters of locus standi to file a public interest litigation and in the acid test of those settled legal position, we are of the view that the present application filed by an advocate who has no personal interest and who is not at all a party aggrieved or party interested due to his professional activity under the Advocates Act, has no locus standi to assail the applicability of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 and its amendment of 2002 relating to the litigation as are being filed to the different Courts within the territorial jurisdiction of Andaman & Nicobar Islands including the Circuit Bench of High Court at Calcutta. 13. On that score writ application is not maintainable. Accordingly, writ application stand dismissed. This is made clear that since on the point of locus standi we have decided the preliminary point rejecting the writ application, we have restrained ourselves consciously from discussing the merits of this writ application on applicability of West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 its amendment, 2002 and we are keeping that point open for decision as and when such a situation will arise in any case wherein the party would be able to satisfy the locus standi issue. Later: Let urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates appearing for the parties expeditiously.