1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Revision Application Stamp No.13024 of 2010 (Smt. Rashmi wd/o Rajendra Rajurkar v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, and another) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri M.W. Harsulkar, Advocate for Applicant. Shri A.G. Mujumdar, AGP for Non-Applicant No.1/State. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 23 rd June, 2011 1. Heard Shri M.W. Harsulkar, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant; and Shri A.G. Mujumdar, the learned AGP appearing for the non-applicant No.1/State. 2. The Registrar (Judicial), by his order dated 19-3-2010, has held that the appeals filed by the applicant are under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, and though the same are styled as the 'Appeals against Orders', in fact the same are the 'First Appeals'. It has further been held that the court fee payable in appeal is governed by Article 3 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act as a regular appeal, i.e. the First Appeal. The appellants were directed to pay ad valorem court fee, as contemplated by Article 3 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court 2 Fees Act. 3. The contention of Shri Harsulkar, the learned counsel for the applicant, is that the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is a welfare piece of legislation and it has been so held by the Apex Court in its decision in Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others, reported in 2008 ACJ 1895. He has further relied upon the decision of this Court in Smt. Vaishali wd/o Nitesh Bhalerao v. Union of India, reported in 2010(5) ALL MR 726. He does not dispute that the said Appeals against Orders are under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. He also does not dispute that if the said Appeals against Orders are to be treated as the First Appeals, the provision of Article 3 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act is attracted. His submission is that these are the Appeals against Orders and hence Article 3 of Schedule I does not govern the position. Once it is held that these are the regular Appeals, i.e. the First Appeals, then the court fee is governed by Article 3 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act. 4. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the applicant are not on the point as to whether the appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act can be subject-matter of court fee under Article 3 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act. The same are, therefore, of no help to the learned counsel for the applicant. 5. In view of this, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Registrar (Judicial) that the said Appeals against Orders are to be treated as the First Appeals. 3 6. The civil revision application is, therefore, dismissed. Judge pdl