In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court declared the District Collector's inaction in refunding court fee illegal and ordered immediate refund with interest and potential costs.
Refund of Rs. 2,77,456 within two weeks; interest at 24% per annum for delay; costs of Rs. 50,000 to Army Welfare Fund if further negligence occurs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
3tl I I! I
HIGH COURI FOR THE I LA N GANA ,.;" ",.j tlflf#.I:rE
[32os ]
""fli[,#5,i9_.]li,.Jl[P,ff"ofnffi ,**
PRESENT
Between:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUTVIA LATHA wRt TP ETITION N 2 F 2023
ff" T::,,,,::l;,ni; o"o by his G p.A horder N.M. wariuddin Khan s/o 36 years' occ' Business, nyo. rs-z262l2rs,Jahanur", Hyo"rrorlge'
AND
...PETITIONER
Secretariat, Hyderabacl
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an order or direction particurarry in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring that the inaction on part of the respondent no. 2 for not refunding' the court fee amount of Rs. 2,77,456/- Rupees Two rakhs seventy seven thousand and four hundred and fifty six onry is highry iregar and arbitrary. consequentry this Hon'bre court may be preased to direct the respondent no. 2 to refund the court fee amount of Rs. 2,77,456! (Rupees Two rakhs seventy seven thousand and four hundrea and fifty six onry) by depositing the sarne in the Bank account of the petitioner
I Iii
IANo:10F2023 Section151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated Petitionunder in supportof the petition'the High CourtmaY be pleased in theaffidavit filed interimdirection thereby directing the respondent no 2 to pleasedto Pass an Twolakhs seventyseven amountof Rs'2'77 '456/-(Rupees refundthe court fee thousandand four h undredandfiftySixonly)bydepositingthesameintheBank accountof the Petitioner
Counselfor the Petitioner:SRI'MIRAHMED KHAN counselforthe Respondent Nos'ras: Mb'ffiLRl[|'.AND PLANNING
Counselfor the RespondentNo'2: SRI B' DILLEP KUMAR' GP FORREVENUE The Courtmadethe following:ORDER
I i
J
HOIV'BLE Dr. .TUSTICE
HOIV'BLE Dr. .TUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUIIIALA?HA ORDER; TPETITIONNo.26622 of 2023
i. Heard Sri Mir flt1m.6 Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.Dileep Kurnar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, who is representing Respondent No.2 and Ms.Chandana, learned Assistalt Government pleader for Finance arrd planning, who is representing Respondent Nos. 1 &3.
1
l,( sL.J tI' P ,\o )661of )023
Ranga ReddyDistrict,addressed a letter tothe District Collector, RangaReddyDistrict,enclosing the attestedcopy of challan by whichCourtFee was paid and seekingfor refund of Court Fee to thepetitioner.However, till now,there is no response. t earnedcounselstates that in the year 2022 'a Iegal notice was alsoissued to the DistrictCollector, Ranga Reddy District, but he didnot respond.
Z
3
DLCST-J ty.P.No.2622 of 2023
l i I I I i I
Dis.No.3674/2O2I, dated 13.O7.2021 , is also on record. Through the said letter, enclosing the attested copy ofchallan regarding payment of Court Fee by the petitioner herein, the District Collector was informed about the Awardpassed and the application made by thepetitioner for refundof Court Fee. The reason for not attendingthe requestof the petitioner is not known. Thematerialavailable on record makesit clear that the CourtFee was not refundedand the requeststood pending since two years.Noneother than a Unit Head'the Principal District& SessionsJudge'Ranga ReddyDistrict' addressedaletter to Respondent No 2-DistrictCollector' RangaReddy District' with regard to refund of CourtFee' However,the said letter lr/asnot cntertainedtillnow' Therefore,this Court is of thc vie'uv that the Writ Petition is requiredto be disposed o[ directirrg ttle District Collector' RangaReddy District'' to look into th<: issue i mmediately '
\ )
6 Hence,the Writ Petitron is disposed of with the followrng
directron:-
ReddY Collector' Ranga No.2-Distrtct ResPondent arefund.of irectedto ta'ke immediatcstePs lor District,is d
4
l)r('SL.J fi P ,'o 266I ol )0:l
Court Fee, rvhich is the subject matter in the letter addressed by the principal District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, vide letter in Dis.No.3674 of 2021, dated 13.07.2021. The Court Fee shall be refunded within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case, the Court fee, which is liable to be refunded, is not refunded within a period of tr,r,o rr,eeks, the same shall carry interest @ 24o/o per annum from the date it becomes due. Also, if further negligence rs found, rhe concerned Authority shall be Iiable to pay costs of Rs.SO,OOO/_ (Rupees Fift5r thousand only) to the Army Welfare Fund. There shall be no order as to costs_ Misceilaneous petitions pending, if ar closed. ty, thall stand
I
To,
HIGHCOURT
DATED:17t1O12023
g T € o
.t
.t
t'
]I,
ri
c,J s$ l[N 1$tl a-
-', /:
u .', " ,'i;f'j, ,/
"--:-,-./-
ORDER
WP.No.26622o12023
DISPOSING OFTHE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
?rqt" 31\o)3.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the District Collector's inaction in refunding the court fee amount of Rs. 2,77,456 is illegal and arbitrary?
N.M. Wariuddin Khan
The State of Telangana
The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District
The Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad
Dr. Justice Chillakur Sivalatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
