THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY. WRIT PETITION No. 464 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) This writ petition is fundamentally misconceived. The 2nd respondent applied to the 1st respondent for exemption of the court fee payable in O.S.No. 125 of 2009 instituted by the said respondent against the petitioner before the VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam for partition of the properties scheduled in the suit. The 1st respondent by the impugned certificate dt. 28.3.2009 granted exemption of court fee in an amount of Rs. 45,632/-, the amount of exemption applied for by the 2nd respondent. Grant of certificate by the 1st respondent is assailed on several grounds; principally on the ground that the pro forma in which the certificate is granted is at variance with the pro forma of certificate drawn up pursuant to the order of the State Government in G.O.Ms.No. 73 (LA&J Home Courts-D1) Department dt. 19.6.2007; that the 2nd respondent does not specify the criteria for grant of exemption under Section 12(h) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987; and that while the court fee payable by the 2nd respondent is only Rs. 33,526/- under Section 34(2) of the Schedule-I of A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, exemption has been granted for Rs. 45,632/-. None of the contentions urged by the petitioner to assail the grant of the certificate of exemption commend acceptance by this Court. Qua Section 12(c) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 a woman or a child who has to file or defend a case shall be entitled to legal services under the Act. ‘Legal Service’ is defined under Section 2 (c) as the rendering of any service in the conduct of any case or other legal proceeding before any court or other authority or tribunal and the giving of advice on any legal matter. Exemption from payment of court fee is one of the legal services that legitimately falls within the contours of the provisions of the Act. On this the learned Counsel for the petitioner is agreed. Under Section 13(2) of the Act a mere affidavit made by a person as to his income be regarded as sufficient for making him eligible to the entitlement of legal services under this Act, unless the concerned Authority has reason to disbelieve such affidavit. Even if the court fee payable on O.S.No.125 of 2009 instituted by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam is less than the amount of exemption granted, that will not in any way entitle the 2nd respondent to receive the balance amount. What the 2nd respondent is exempted from payment of court fee payable having regard to the cause urged in O.S.No. 125 of 2009 and nothing more. On the analysis above, the writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ________________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 07.03.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY. WRIT PETITION No. 464 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) Dt. 07.03.2011.