Exemption In Payment Of Court Fee Is A State Subject & Is Not Guaranteed Under Legal Services Authorities Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Brief Facts of the Case

The Writ Petition was filed to declare the orders by Chairman of Legal Service Authority against Section 12(a) or Section 12(h) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and against the ruling of Supreme Court in Manoharan v. Sivaranjani & Ors. (2013) and consequently to direct the Chairman to grant Court fee exemption certificate payable on the plaint, to the petitioner.

The petitioner filed a suit against respondent no. 2 to 5 for recovery of suit amount of Rs. 1,21,233/- before the Court. The petitioner had to pay a Court fee of Rs. 3,726/-. Claiming that he had no capacity to pay the Court Fee, the petitioner filed a petition to send the plaint to Mandal Legal Services Authority for exemption in payment of Court Fee.

The plaint along with the application was submitted before the Mandal Legal Service Chairman but was returned with an endorsement that exemption for payment of Court Fee could not be given.

Budige Rangaswami, counsel for petitioner contended that exemption in court fee had to be given if the plaintiff is a person belonging to a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe as per Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

However, S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, counsel for Chairman/respondent no. 1 submitted that Section 12 of the 1987 Act nowhere contemplated getting any exemption from payment of Court Fee to a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. It only dealt with extending legal services under the Act to the members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

Section 12 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987

12. Criteria for giving legal services —Every person who has to file or defend a case shall be entitled to legal services under this Act if that person is—

(a) a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe;

(h) in receipt of annual income less than rupees nine thousand or such other higher amount as may be prescribed by the State Government, if the case is before a court other than the Supreme Court, and less than rupees twelve thousand or such other higher amount as may be prescribed by the Central Government, if the case is before the Supreme Court.]

Finding of the Court

From the reading of the provision, the Bench observed that it was very much clear that Section 12 of the Act only contemplated providing legal services under the Act. The court placed reliance on Kopparthi Krishna Murthy v. District Legal Services Authorities, West Godavari, Eluru & Ors. (2014) to hold that the plaintiff should approach the Legal Services Authority and if the concerned authority is satisfied that such person satisfies the criteria specified in Section 12 of the Act, then it may invoke the stipulations issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 68 of AP Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956.

The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 does not speak about any exemption from payment of court fees. On the contrary, Section 21(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 enables only the refund of the court fee, in cases where a compromise or settlement is arrived at by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under Section 20(1). But even this refund is to be made, as per Section 21(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, only in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act. It is an irony that Section 21(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 makes a reference only to the Court Fees Act, 1870 despite the fact that after the adoption of the Constitution, court fee became a State subject and every State issued its own enactment.

After the advent of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the Government issued a notification in G.O.Ms.No.73 Law dated 19.06.2007, exempting persons entitled and provided with Legal Services under Sections 12 and 13 of the 1987 Act, from payment of Court Fees. This Government order was issued again in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 68 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956.

Furthermore, Manoharan case (supra) relied on by the Petitioner was totally different as no application was made before the Lok Adalat seeking exemption from payment of Court Fee. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in that case had just noted that if the plaintiff was unable to pay court fee for any reason, he was at liberty to approach the District Legal Service Authority and the application shall be considered.

Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had capacity to engage a counsel to provide legal assistance and represent the petitioner throughout filing of the suit; and as there was no material to show that his yearly earnings were around Rs. 3 lakhs, it was correct that the Authority rejected the request of the petitioner for exemption of payment of Court Fee.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Katepogu Danamaiah v. The Chairman, Legal Service Authority