Disposed

R.Natarajan v. Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC22 Oct 2018WP/27440/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Secretary to the Government, Home Department to consider the petitioner's representation challenging enhanced writ court fees within six weeks, disposing of the writ petition without deciding on the merits of the fee proposal.

What did the court decide?

Direct two respondent to consider petitioner's representation and pass orders within six weeks. Petition disposed.

R.Natarajan Vs Government of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.10.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶5

WP.No.27440 of 2018

¶6

R.Natarajan ... Petitioner
vs.
1. Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai.
2. Secretary,
Home Department,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai.
3. The Registrar General,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai - 600 104. ... Respondents
Prayer:-
WRIT Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, calling
for the records of the respondent-2 pertaining to the amendment
made to increase the court fees payable in respect of petitions
to the Hon'ble High Court for Writs under Artciles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India as per Sec.12(3) (vi) of the Tamilnadu
Court Fees and Suits Valuation (Amendment) Act, 2017 (Act No.6
of 2017) notified in the Gazette on 17.02.2017 and quash the
same, and consequently direct the respondents 1 & 2 to restore
the status quo ante.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mrs.E.Maragathasundari For Respondents : Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan [for R1 & R2] Government Pleader. Mr.B.Vijay [for R3]

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

ORDER

¶10

(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J)

¶11

Petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus, calling for the records of the Secretary to the Government, Home Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai, the 2nd respondent herein, pertaining to the amendment made, to increase the Court fees payable, in respect of petitions, filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, as per Sec.12(3) (vi) of the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation (Amendment) Act, 2017 (Act No.6 of 2017) notified in the Gazette on 17.02.2017 and quash the same, and consequently, direct the respondents 1 & 2, to restore status quo ante.

¶12

2. We have gone through the entire material on record.

¶13

3. Pursuant to the report of the Court Fees Rationalisation Committee, headed by Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Sampath (Retd.) and Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, learned Senior Advocate and Mr.RamaKrishnan Viraraghavan, Barrister and the views expressed by the High Court in W.P.No.31249 of 2014 etc., batch of writ petitions, Government have enacted Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Amendment Act, 2017 (Act 6 of 2017), by which Court fee, has been enhanced for appeals, writ petitions, etc.

¶14

4. As per Section 12(3)(vi) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation (Amendment) Act, 2017, Court fee for writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, other than a writ of Habeas Corpus has been fixed as Rs.1,500/-. Court Fee for Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is Rs.500/-.

¶15

5. Contending inter alia that the abovesaid Court fee fixed by this Court, for filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is excessive, than the Court fee fixed for the above, in other states, and that the Committee has ignored the Law Commission's recommendation, opinion of 84.38% of the stakeholders, fee-structure for Writs in other States, Court-fee structure of the Hon'ble Apex Court and for other reasons, petitioner is stated to have sent a representation dated 05.02.2018 to the Registrar General, High Court, Madras.

¶16

"(a) the recommendations of the Rationalisation Committee in respect of Writ may kindly be reviewed by the Administrative Wing of the Hon'ble High Court and its recommendation to increase the Court Fee for the "Petition to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for a Writ other than Writ of Habeas Corpus" rejected and the State Government of Tamilnadu

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

be advised to fix that fee at Rs.50 per Petitioner as is in vogue in Delhi and Punjab, or to make it Nil as recommended by the Law Commission of India.

¶19

(b) In addition, as an interim measure, the Government of Tamilnadu may kindly be advised to hold in abeyance, Sec.12(3)(vi) of the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation (Amendment) Act, 2017 and restore the status quo ante, that was prevailing upto 28.02.2017 in respect of "Petition to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for a Writ other than Writof Habeas Corpus."

¶20

6. Subsequently, the petitioner has made an application dated 13.07.2018 and 18.07.2018, to the Registrar (Administration) Public Information Officer, Madras. Contending inter alia that there is no response, instant writ petition has been filed for the relief stated supra.

¶21

7. Mr.B.Vijay, learned counsel representing the Registrar General, High Court, Madras submitted that representation of the petitioner dated 05.02.2018, submitted to the Registrar General, High Court, Madras, has been forwarded to the Government, Home Department, vide letter dated 06.06.2018.

¶22

8. Representation of the petitioner, is stated to be pending, with the Government. Hence, Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan, learned Government Pleader is put on notice.

¶23

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶24

10. Mrs.E.Maragathasundari, learned counsel for the petitioner, admitted the appointment of a Committee, on the request of the petitioner therein.

¶25

11. High Court has appointed a committee, headed by a Former Judge of Madras High Court, Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Sampath. Committee has submitted its report. Pursuant to the directions, Government have gazetted the enactment. Now, representation is pending before the Government.

¶26

12. In the abovesaid circumstances, we only direct the Secretary to the Government, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, the 2nd respondent herein to consider the petitioners representation dated 05.02.2018, forwarded by the Registrar General, High Court Madras, vide letter dated 06.06.2018 and pass orders, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

13. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶29

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar
ars
To
1. Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai.
2. Secretary,
Home Department,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai.
3. The Registrar General,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai - 600 104.
+1cc to Mrs.E.Maragathasundari, Advocate, S.R.No.72476
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.71810
WP.No.27440 of 2018
MR(Co)
CS/12/11/2018

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.Natarajan v. Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Natarajan v. Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Coimbatore Consumer Voice Vs The Chief Secretary

S.Venkatesan Vs The Chief Secretary

The Management of Vaels Educational Trust, Vs the Additional Labour Court

Unnamalai Prasanthi Vs The Chairman

M.Paul Perinbam Vs The Secretary

T. Devi Vs The District Collector