IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 25975 of 2008 Between: Vijay Kumar Agarwal, S/o. R.C. Agarwal, R/o. Plot No.25, KR Nagar, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad -11. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-4. 2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The Presiding Officer, II Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nture of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No.2 in not refunding the Court Fees of Rs. 57,426/- to the petitioner in spite of a certificate dated 11-09-07 issued by the presiding officer, the Hon'ble II Addl. District Judge, RR District in terms of Section 21(10 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1937 (as amended) R/w Rule 18 of the Legal Services Authority Rules in corporated vide G.O.Ms.NO. 149, Law (Law Courts A-1) Dept dated 11-10-2000 as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to refund the Court Fees of Rs. 57,426/- to the Petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.M.R.VELU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 25975 of 2008 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of respondent No.2 in refunding the Court fee of Rs.57,426/- to the petitioner in spite of a certificate dated 11.9.2007 issued by the Presiding Officer i.e. the learned II Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District in terms of Section 21 (1) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1937 (as amended) read with Rule 18 of the Legal Services Authority Rules incorporated vide G.O.Ms.No.149 Law (Law Courts A-1) Department dated 11.10.2000 as arbitrary and illegal; consequently to direct respondent No.2 to refund the Court fee of Rs.57,426/- to the petitioner. It appears, petitioner had filed O.S. No. 949 of 2006 on the file of learned II Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District against one N. Ramakrishna for recovery of money and paid a Court fee of Rs.57,456/-. After receipt of summons by the defendant and on his appearance, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat with the consent of both the parties and suit claim was settled through Lok Adalat on 8.1.2006 and an Award was passed to that effect. Under those circumstances, the learned II Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District issued a Certificate dated 11.9.2007 certifying that the suit – O.S. No. 949 of 2006 filed by the petitioner was settled in Lok Adalat and as such he is entitled for refund of the Court fee of Rs.57,426/- in terms of Section 21(1) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1937 (as amended) read with Rule 18 of the Legal Services Authority Rules, incorporated vide G.O.Ms.No.149 Law (Law Courts A-1) Department dated 11.10.2000. However, respondent No.2, instead of refunding the amount, issued a letter dated 7.7.2008 stating that the original challan of the payment made by the petitioner should be surrendered and then only he is entitled for refund of the said amount and thus returned the certificate to the learned II Additional District Judge, without making any payment. According to the petitioner, the said original challan was not returned to him by the Court, instead, a certificate dated 11.9.2007 was issued by the Presiding Officer certifying that he is entitled for refund of the Court fee; therefore, respondent No.2 ought not to have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he has not produced the original challan. It appears, as per the A.P. Financial Code, every refund of money can be made on surrender of original challan and, in the instant case, such challan was not enclosed. Learned Government Pleader strenuously contended that unless and until the original challan is made available to the refunding authority, it may not be possible under the Financial Code to refund the said amount though, in the instant case, it was sanctioned as per the certificate issued by the learned District Judge. I am of the opinion that the petitioner, instead of approaching the learned II Additional District Judge for return of the original challan by furnishing a certified copy of the same to be kept in the file of the Court, approached this Court by way of this writ petition. Respondent No.2 cannot be blamed for non-production of the original challan by the petitioner under which the Court fee was paid before the learned II Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District in O.S. No. 949 of 2006, which was settled in the Lok Adalat. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the learned II Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District and file application for return of the original challan by retaining a certified copy of the same. On filing such application, learned II Additional District Judge may proceed with the matter, as per law, and consider returning the original challan under which the Court fee was paid by the petitioner, to enable the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent and claim refund. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 11-9-2009. Note: Issue copies in three days. (BO) MVB.