STI^T 3iT h-U* w sn^y shtn* '(^ 'S^t ^wwi, fs-»\wie, hwwy. *11*1CTI ^^iq,"- •••••• •••^200 3^?ITra^' (1cl['i«i'^T) ^CTW^ltoW^I Writ PetitioA (227t No. 3886/2008 PBTITIQNBR Laxmi 63 Borendla yeajrs Versas Mahe 58 (CG) State (CG) yeprs Writ Petition under Artidle 227 of the Constitution of India SBJL HON'BLE SHM DHIRBNti 23.07.a008 Dr. SIiailesh Ahuja, ShriV.V.S. Murthy, Dy, Heard. By this petition under pedtioner Iias iaipugned the whereby fhe 7th Additional Dij appUcation. of the petitioner ^ under Oixler 33 ofthe C.P.C. Leanued counsel for order has been. passed by ^ certificate of die petitioner as such, perverse. thfc antl ^tl<lIfl<ft'T ^WV\\ ^f fs^ <f^l^$l< ^i'sifinsiA?! prasad, S/o«/Rikhi Prasad, aged about i, caste Brahmin (Paudey) resident of a., Tah: Patau, Distt, Durg (CG) ^h Kuinar, S/o Rikhi Prasad, aged about resident of Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari 'pf Chhattisgarh: through CoUector, Durg RA MISHRA.J coujisel for the petitioner. lAdvocate General for the State, A^ticle 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia, fhe (irder of Annexure P-3, dated 14.1.2008, ^tnct Judge (FTC), Dui^ has rejected the (»r exemption froni payment of CoLirt fee i^ petitioner subinits that fhe unpugned pie trial Court by ignoring tlie income other evidence available ou lecord and "-a^" i- P" '"-S S XI-HG—78 3i^"'Trli!-fi<ti 'flW sn^\ sfiliti ip'a'inn^ ^ 'S^I •^Wlv\^, Btll'M'l'a, fqdl^y *ll*ldl th*ll<*i •^200 •w^r''ra^f? (1pi3^r) TOnm: ^fta-sii^i - 2- Court, on the basis of evideni °bl<<Id<fl-f llftll''? f3%t <(»i<$i< ^3TRn3I]^7f Heard learued counsel ^br the petitioner. From perusal of fiie it4pugned order, it is evident that the trial c/ e adduced by the petitioner i.e. statement of Halka Patwari, has reachai to the conclusion tfaat the annual iacome of the petitioner is Rs.24,000]/- . Apart from (hat, fhe petitioner is also possessed ofproperty worth |Rs.2,73,000/- aud ffaus he is able to pay Court fee and is not entitied|for exemption froia payment of Court fee aud rejected his applicatiDU. In the consKlered opiiu^n of tfais Court, the coiut below has not conurutted auy fflEgality, mfiTJmily or jurisdictional error in passiag the iaipugned oider which warrajits iaterference in exercise ofjurisdiction iiader Ardcle 227 offhe Constitution oflndia. lu fhe result, the petiticjn has uo substance, fhe same deserves to be dismissed aad it s accordi|agly dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge » ffW