1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6855 OF 2008 Nikhat Bano d/o. Syed Azgar Ali, R/o. Iqbal Nagar, Purna, District Parbhani. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Through its Superintendent, Nanded Circle, Vidyut Bhavan, Nanded. 2. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Through its Executive Engineer, Division Office, Parbhani. 3. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Through its Junior Engineer, Sub-Division, Purna, Tq. Purna, District Parbhani. 4. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondents. Shri. Md. Sayeedulla Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. H.T. Joshi, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Shri.K.S.Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No. 4. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 18th JUNE, 2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 15th of December 2005, thereby directing the plaintiff to pay requisite Court fee within 15 days and the consequential order dated 20th July 2006, thereby rejecting the plaint for non compliance of the order. 3. The petitioner has filed the suit against the Maharashtra State Electricity Board. The petitioner's case is that she has sustained electric shock due to negligent act of defendant. The petitioner has not paid requisite Court fees at the time of filing of suit. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application for directing the petitioner to deposit the requisite Court fees. The said application came to be allowed and the petitioner is directed to deposit the requisite Court fees within 15 days. Due to non payment of the Court fees, the plaint came to be rejected. Hence, the present petition. 4. It can be seen that under the notification of 1st October 1994, there is no restriction on the exemption of Court fees to women litigants. The said restrictions have been brought only by the notification dated 23rd March 2000 which restricts the exemption only for the suits filed by 3 the women litigants, concerning maintenance, property dispute, violence and divorce. However, the said notification dated 23rd of March 2000 would be applicable only to the suits which are filed from the date of the notification. Reference would be made to the judgment of this Court in Jaya Yedke and others Vs. Qasam Mohd. Patel and others, reported in 2004(4), Mh. L.J. 10 in this respect. 5. The suit is admittedly filed in the year 1998. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the law. 6. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clauses "B" and "C" [ B.R. GAVAI, J. ] ssc/wp6855.08