1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1578 OF 2003 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1578 OF 2003 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1578 OF 2003 IN IN IN SUIT NO.145 OF 2003 SUIT NO.145 OF 2003 SUIT NO.145 OF 2003 M/s.Padam Exports & Anr. ...Plaintiffs Vs. Union of India & Anr. ...Defendants ----- Mr.G.L.Jain for Plaintiff No.1 Plaintiff No.2 in person and Proprietor of Plaintiff No.1. Mr. S.R. Rajguru for Defendants CORAM: SMT.R.S.DALVI,J. CORAM: SMT.R.S.DALVI,J. CORAM: SMT.R.S.DALVI,J. DATED: 26TH JULY, 2005 DATED: 26TH JULY, 2005 DATED: 26TH JULY, 2005 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The suit is filed to claim compensation and 1. The suit is filed to claim compensation and 1. The suit is filed to claim compensation and additional compensation totally aggregating to additional compensation totally aggregating to additional compensation totally aggregating to Rs.20,2009835878 for rejection of a licence under the Rs.20,2009835878 for rejection of a licence under the Rs.20,2009835878 for rejection of a licence under the Duty Exemption Scheme of the Defendants. The Duty Exemption Scheme of the Defendants. The Duty Exemption Scheme of the Defendants. The Plaintiff’s licence dated 17th January, 1994 was Plaintiff’s licence dated 17th January, 1994 was Plaintiff’s licence dated 17th January, 1994 was submitted to the Defendants on 4th February, 1994. submitted to the Defendants on 4th February, 1994. submitted to the Defendants on 4th February, 1994. The Defendants were to take 15 days for its disposal. The Defendants were to take 15 days for its disposal. The Defendants were to take 15 days for its disposal. This was upon the premise that there were no This was upon the premise that there were no This was upon the premise that there were no objections and irregularities. objections and irregularities. objections and irregularities. 2. The Defendants by their letter dated 6th May, 2. The Defendants by their letter dated 6th May, 2. The Defendants by their letter dated 6th May, 1994, which is stated to have been received by the 1994, which is stated to have been received by the 1994, which is stated to have been received by the Plaintiff on 27th June 1994, closed the Plaintiff’s Plaintiff on 27th June 1994, closed the Plaintiff’s Plaintiff on 27th June 1994, closed the Plaintiff’s case and allowed the Plaintiff to reopen his case and case and allowed the Plaintiff to reopen his case and case and allowed the Plaintiff to reopen his case and 2 reapply to the Defendants upon satisfying two reapply to the Defendants upon satisfying two reapply to the Defendants upon satisfying two conditions mentioned therein. Those two conditions conditions mentioned therein. Those two conditions conditions mentioned therein. Those two conditions were :- were :- were :- (i). That the Plaintiff gave separate weight of the (i). That the Plaintiff gave separate weight of the (i). That the Plaintiff gave separate weight of the ingot items being bangles and boxes and ingot items being bangles and boxes and ingot items being bangles and boxes and (ii). since the Plaintiff’s application was made for (ii). since the Plaintiff’s application was made for (ii). since the Plaintiff’s application was made for the first time for licence he would be eligible to the the first time for licence he would be eligible to the the first time for licence he would be eligible to the extent of Rs.25 lakhs. extent of Rs.25 lakhs. extent of Rs.25 lakhs. The Plaintiff’s licence was for Rs.48 lakhs. The Plaintiff’s licence was for Rs.48 lakhs. The Plaintiff’s licence was for Rs.48 lakhs. 3. Instead of complying with these two 3. Instead of complying with these two 3. Instead of complying with these two requisitions, the Plaintiff wrote his letter dated requisitions, the Plaintiff wrote his letter dated requisitions, the Plaintiff wrote his letter dated 28th June, 1994 to the Defendants contending that the 28th June, 1994 to the Defendants contending that the 28th June, 1994 to the Defendants contending that the net weight of the box was not necessary to be given as net weight of the box was not necessary to be given as net weight of the box was not necessary to be given as per their policy since the export was only of the per their policy since the export was only of the per their policy since the export was only of the bangles and that its weight can be seen from the bangles and that its weight can be seen from the bangles and that its weight can be seen from the Plaintiff’s application itself and insisted upon a Plaintiff’s application itself and insisted upon a Plaintiff’s application itself and insisted upon a licence to the extent of Rs.4898750 on top most licence to the extent of Rs.4898750 on top most licence to the extent of Rs.4898750 on top most priority basis. priority basis. priority basis. 4. The Defendants by their letter dated 19th 4. The Defendants by their letter dated 19th 4. The Defendants by their letter dated 19th August, 1994 stated that the Plaintiff’s request was August, 1994 stated that the Plaintiff’s request was August, 1994 stated that the Plaintiff’s request was rejected for the four reasons mentioned therein. This rejected for the four reasons mentioned therein. This rejected for the four reasons mentioned therein. This reply interalia shows that the Plaintiff’s valuation reply interalia shows that the Plaintiff’s valuation reply interalia shows that the Plaintiff’s valuation was exorbitant to the extent of Rs.100/- per bangle was exorbitant to the extent of Rs.100/- per bangle was exorbitant to the extent of Rs.100/- per bangle which was found lacking in bonafides by the which was found lacking in bonafides by the which was found lacking in bonafides by the 3 Defendants. Defendants. Defendants. 5. The Plaintiff has resorted to, and by now 5. The Plaintiff has resorted to, and by now 5. The Plaintiff has resorted to, and by now exhausted, all the remedies available to him, after exhausted, all the remedies available to him, after exhausted, all the remedies available to him, after his application came to be rejected by the Defendants. his application came to be rejected by the Defendants. his application came to be rejected by the Defendants. 6. He filed the first appeal, second appeal, SLP, 6. He filed the first appeal, second appeal, SLP, 6. He filed the first appeal, second appeal, SLP, made a representation to the Ministry of Commerce, made a representation to the Ministry of Commerce, made a representation to the Ministry of Commerce, filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum, filed a filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum, filed a filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum, filed a Civil Appeal before the National Commission and also Civil Appeal before the National Commission and also Civil Appeal before the National Commission and also took recourse to the Human Rights Commission. Each of took recourse to the Human Rights Commission. Each of took recourse to the Human Rights Commission. Each of these proceedings has been dismissed. these proceedings has been dismissed. these proceedings has been dismissed. 7. Finally the Plaintiff has sued for 7. Finally the Plaintiff has sued for 7. Finally the Plaintiff has sued for compensation and additional compensation. The compensation and additional compensation. The compensation and additional compensation. The Plaintiff’s claim to the extent of Rs.202009835878 is Plaintiff’s claim to the extent of Rs.202009835878 is Plaintiff’s claim to the extent of Rs.202009835878 is required to be shown to be primafacie valid. required to be shown to be primafacie valid. required to be shown to be primafacie valid. 8. The annexures to the Plaint show that the 8. The annexures to the Plaint show that the 8. The annexures to the Plaint show that the Plaintiff’s application has not been rejected without Plaintiff’s application has not been rejected without Plaintiff’s application has not been rejected without any grounds. The Plaintiff has been directed to any grounds. The Plaintiff has been directed to any grounds. The Plaintiff has been directed to reapply upon complying with reasonable requisitions of reapply upon complying with reasonable requisitions of reapply upon complying with reasonable requisitions of the Defendants. The Plaintiff has failed to do so. the Defendants. The Plaintiff has failed to do so. the Defendants. The Plaintiff has failed to do so. 9. The Plaintiff claims that other Exporters have 9. The Plaintiff claims that other Exporters have 9. The Plaintiff claims that other Exporters have been issued licence and hence, he has been been issued licence and hence, he has been been issued licence and hence, he has been discriminated. Each licence has to be seen and discriminated. Each licence has to be seen and discriminated. Each licence has to be seen and evaluated upon its own merits. The Defendants have evaluated upon its own merits. The Defendants have evaluated upon its own merits. The Defendants have contended that all the applications which did not have contended that all the applications which did not have contended that all the applications which did not have 4 deficiencies and which complied with the requirements deficiencies and which complied with the requirements deficiencies and which complied with the requirements have been passed and the deficient applications like have been passed and the deficient applications like have been passed and the deficient applications like that of the Plaintiff have been rejected. that of the Plaintiff have been rejected. that of the Plaintiff have been rejected. 10. The Plaintiff contends that his application was 10. The Plaintiff contends that his application was 10. The Plaintiff contends that his application was not considered within 15 days during the year 1993-94 not considered within 15 days during the year 1993-94 not considered within 15 days during the year 1993-94 and if that was done the limit upon the export of and if that was done the limit upon the export of and if that was done the limit upon the export of Rs.25 lakhs would not have been applicable to the Rs.25 lakhs would not have been applicable to the Rs.25 lakhs would not have been applicable to the Plaintiff’s case. He contends that, that limit came Plaintiff’s case. He contends that, that limit came Plaintiff’s case. He contends that, that limit came to be introduced for the first time after 1st April to be introduced for the first time after 1st April to be introduced for the first time after 1st April 1994, but his application should have been granted 1994, but his application should have been granted 1994, but his application should have been granted before that date. before that date. before that date. 11. Though being called upon to show the new 11. Though being called upon to show the new 11. Though being called upon to show the new policy of the Defendants which came into force from policy of the Defendants which came into force from policy of the Defendants which came into force from 1st April 1994 laying down for the first time the 1st April 1994 laying down for the first time the 1st April 1994 laying down for the first time the limit of Rs.25 lakhs for the first application, the limit of Rs.25 lakhs for the first application, the limit of Rs.25 lakhs for the first application, the Plaintiff has been unable to show that fact. Plaintiff has been unable to show that fact. Plaintiff has been unable to show that fact. 12. It can be primafacie seen that the Plaintiff’s 12. It can be primafacie seen that the Plaintiff’s 12. It can be primafacie seen that the Plaintiff’s case of compensation to the extent claimed by him is case of compensation to the extent claimed by him is case of compensation to the extent claimed by him is most egregious and exorbitant. Therefore, primafacie most egregious and exorbitant. Therefore, primafacie most egregious and exorbitant. Therefore, primafacie case for grant of such damages is not seen to have case for grant of such damages is not seen to have case for grant of such damages is not seen to have been made out. been made out. been made out. 13. In this light the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion 13. In this light the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion 13. In this light the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion has to be considered. has to be considered. has to be considered. 14. In the Notice of Motion the Plaintiff has 14. In the Notice of Motion the Plaintiff has 14. In the Notice of Motion the Plaintiff has 5 claimed Ex-parte decree, exemption from payment of claimed Ex-parte decree, exemption from payment of claimed Ex-parte decree, exemption from payment of Court fees, 50% amount of the final order and decree Court fees, 50% amount of the final order and decree Court fees, 50% amount of the final order and decree to be paid over to the Plaintiff and the costs of this to be paid over to the Plaintiff and the costs of this to be paid over to the Plaintiff and the costs of this Notice of Motion. Notice of Motion. Notice of Motion. 15. Written statement has already been filed in 15. Written statement has already been filed in 15. Written statement has already been filed in this suit on 15th July, 2003 despite the Plaintiff’s this suit on 15th July, 2003 despite the Plaintiff’s this suit on 15th July, 2003 despite the Plaintiff’s objection. That having been allowed to be filed by an objection. That having been allowed to be filed by an objection. That having been allowed to be filed by an earlier order, prayer (a) does not survive. earlier order, prayer (a) does not survive. earlier order, prayer (a) does not survive. 16. Since the suit is for damages/compensation, it 16. Since the suit is for damages/compensation, it 16. Since the suit is for damages/compensation, it has to be valued advelorum. Paragraph 52 of the has to be valued advelorum. Paragraph 52 of the has to be valued advelorum. Paragraph 52 of the Plaint itself shows the Plaintiff’s admission that he Plaint itself shows the Plaintiff’s admission that he Plaint itself shows the Plaintiff’s admission that he has to pay maximum Court fees of Rs.3 lakhs. The has to pay maximum Court fees of Rs.3 lakhs. The has to pay maximum Court fees of Rs.3 lakhs. The Plaintiff applies for waiver of the Court fees. There Plaintiff applies for waiver of the Court fees. There Plaintiff applies for waiver of the Court fees. There is no provision in law for waiving Court fees required is no provision in law for waiving Court fees required is no provision in law for waiving Court fees required to be paid advelorum under the Court Fees Act. to be paid advelorum under the Court Fees Act. to be paid advelorum under the Court Fees Act. 17. The Plaintiff has applied for free legal aid 17. The Plaintiff has applied for free legal aid 17. The Plaintiff has applied for free legal aid as well as for payment of Court fees by the Legal as well as for payment of Court fees by the Legal as well as for payment of Court fees by the Legal Services Authority, under the Legal Services Authority Services Authority, under the Legal Services Authority Services Authority, under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. The Plaintiff is a person having an annual Act, 1987. The Plaintiff is a person having an annual Act, 1987. The Plaintiff is a person having an annual income less than Rs.50,000/-. Hence, he would be income less than Rs.50,000/-. Hence, he would be income less than Rs.50,000/-. Hence, he would be eligible for grant of services under the Legal eligible for grant of services under the Legal eligible for grant of services under the Legal Services Authority Act, as per the other provisions of Services Authority Act, as per the other provisions of Services Authority Act, as per the other provisions of that that that Act. Act. Act. 18. Under Section 13(i) of that act persons who 18. Under Section 13(i) of that act persons who 18. Under Section 13(i) of that act persons who satisfy the criteria under Section 12 (which the satisfy the criteria under Section 12 (which the satisfy the criteria under Section 12 (which the 6 Plaintiff does) would be entitled to receive legal Plaintiff does) would be entitled to receive legal Plaintiff does) would be entitled to receive legal services provided the concerned Authority is satisfied services provided the concerned Authority is satisfied services provided the concerned Authority is satisfied that such person has a primafacie case to prosecute or that such person has a primafacie case to prosecute or that such person has a primafacie case to prosecute or Defend. Defend. Defend. 19. The Plaintiff has paid Court fee of Rs.3000/- 19. The Plaintiff has paid Court fee of Rs.3000/- 19. The Plaintiff has paid Court fee of Rs.3000/- instead of Rs.3 lakhs on 20th December, 2002 when he instead of Rs.3 lakhs on 20th December, 2002 when he instead of Rs.3 lakhs on 20th December, 2002 when he filed the suit. He undertook to pay balance Court filed the suit. He undertook to pay balance Court filed the suit. He undertook to pay balance Court fees within three months of that date. Thereafter he fees within three months of that date. Thereafter he fees within three months of that date. Thereafter he the undertaking for payment of court fees has been the undertaking for payment of court fees has been the undertaking for payment of court fees has been extended from time to time. The Plaintiff failed to extended from time to time. The Plaintiff failed to extended from time to time. The Plaintiff failed to pay. The Plaintiff instead called upon the Legal pay. The Plaintiff instead called upon the Legal pay. The Plaintiff instead called upon the Legal Services Authority to pay the balance Court fees of Services Authority to pay the balance Court fees of Services Authority to pay the balance Court fees of Rs.297000/-. That application came to be rejected by Rs.297000/-. That application came to be rejected by Rs.297000/-. That application came to be rejected by the Secretary of the High Court Legal Services the Secretary of the High Court Legal Services the Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee, Bombay on 18th October, 2003. Thereafter Committee, Bombay on 18th October, 2003. Thereafter Committee, Bombay on 18th October, 2003. Thereafter the Plaintiff pursued the Legal Services Authority for the Plaintiff pursued the Legal Services Authority for the Plaintiff pursued the Legal Services Authority for legal aid. By a further letter dated 24th December, legal aid. By a further letter dated 24th December, legal aid. By a further letter dated 24th December, 2004 of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services 2004 of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services 2004 of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Bombay the Plaintiff’s matter was closed Committee, Bombay the Plaintiff’s matter was closed Committee, Bombay the Plaintiff’s matter was closed with regard to legal aid also. with regard to legal aid also. with regard to legal aid also. 20. The Plaintiff has relied upon these letters 20. The Plaintiff has relied upon these letters 20. The Plaintiff has relied upon these letters since he has a grievance against the Secretary of the since he has a grievance against the Secretary of the since he has a grievance against the Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee, Bombay also. It High Court Legal Services Committee, Bombay also. It High Court Legal Services Committee, Bombay also. It is to test the Plaintiff’s contention for obtaining is to test the Plaintiff’s contention for obtaining is to test the Plaintiff’s contention for obtaining not only free legal aid but Court fees to the extent not only free legal aid but Court fees to the extent not only free legal aid but Court fees to the extent of Rs.297000/-, that the primafacie case of the of Rs.297000/-, that the primafacie case of the of Rs.297000/-, that the primafacie case of the Plaintiff comes up for consideration as required under Plaintiff comes up for consideration as required under Plaintiff comes up for consideration as required under 7 Section 13(1) of the Legal Services Authority Act, Section 13(1) of the Legal Services Authority Act, Section 13(1) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. 1987. 1987. 21. It is indeed seen that the Plaintiff has no 21. It is indeed seen that the Plaintiff has no 21. It is indeed seen that the Plaintiff has no primafacie case to claim the extent of compensation primafacie case to claim the extent of compensation primafacie case to claim the extent of compensation claimed by him for refusal to grant him the licence claimed by him for refusal to grant him the licence claimed by him for refusal to grant him the licence that he applied for in 1994. In fact primafacie the that he applied for in 1994. In fact primafacie the that he applied for in 1994. In fact primafacie the Plaintiff’s case is seen to be barred by the law of Plaintiff’s case is seen to be barred by the law of Plaintiff’s case is seen to be barred by the law of limitation. Consequently the Plaintiff cannot be limitation. Consequently the Plaintiff cannot be limitation. Consequently the Plaintiff cannot be granted the relief under prayer (b) of the Notice of granted the relief under prayer (b) of the Notice of granted the relief under prayer (b) of the Notice of Motion also. Motion also. Motion also. 22. The Plaintiff’s further prayer for payment of 22. The Plaintiff’s further prayer for payment of 22. The Plaintiff’s further prayer for payment of 50% of the amount at this stage before leading any 50% of the amount at this stage before leading any 50% of the amount at this stage before leading any evidence and before proving any damages suffered by evidence and before proving any damages suffered by evidence and before proving any damages suffered by him to be entitled to any compensation is totally him to be entitled to any compensation is totally him to be entitled to any compensation is totally devoid of any merit. Prayer (c) must also therefore devoid of any merit. Prayer (c) must also therefore devoid of any merit. Prayer (c) must also therefore be rejected. be rejected. be rejected. 23. In fact it is seen that the suit though 23. In fact it is seen that the suit though 23. In fact it is seen that the suit though properly valued, is writen upon paper insufficiently properly valued, is writen upon paper insufficiently properly valued, is writen upon paper insufficiently stamped. The Plaintiff must therefore pay additional stamped. The Plaintiff must therefore pay additional stamped. The Plaintiff must therefore pay additional Court fee of Rs.2,97,000/-. The Plaint is therefore, Court fee of Rs.2,97,000/-. The Plaint is therefore, Court fee of Rs.2,97,000/-. The Plaint is therefore, liable to be rejected under the provisions of Order 7 liable to be rejected under the provisions of Order 7 liable to be rejected under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (c) of the C.P.C. if the Plaintiff does not Rule 11 (c) of the C.P.C. if the Plaintiff does not Rule 11 (c) of the C.P.C. if the Plaintiff does not supply the requisite stamp paper having payment of supply the requisite stamp paper having payment of supply the requisite stamp paper having payment of deficit court fee. Hence, the following order. deficit court fee. Hence, the following order. deficit court fee. Hence, the following order. 8 O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R 1. The Notice of Motion is dismissed.