Disposed

Mr. Pathi Vilas Kumar, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Nov 2024WP/26456/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the inaction of the Revenue Divisional Officer in refunding court fees of Rs.2,56,226. Withdrawing money from the court through lok adalat settlement. The court directed the respondent to examine the refund request and pass orders within 8 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.4 to examine the refund letter and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

Mr. Pathi Vilas Kumar, Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

I^s2e6 ]

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Originat Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDJ\I.E_SDAY, THE SIXTH DAYOF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND rWErVrV FOUN--''

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO:264560F 2024

¶9

Between:

¶10

[+ffji,{Jr;,o["iir';?it;ffi li?;T:f s:'"-:ril'.%Ii,ri"?E?

¶11

AND

¶12

.....PETIT!oNER

¶13

'lllH,'ff "r"Jr:"Jyi:B,Trc?ffi JJ?'Bx,,"?fi ii1?;'_,?fl?ff 31?,0"0

¶14

'I:;,',l;lsfJl?lilfi1ii;[53iild1,.#ff 'E3:i?51?11ff ,53[anodLegis,ation

¶15

The District Collector, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad.

¶16

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad.

¶17

.....RESPONOENTS

¶18

Petition Under Articre 226 0t the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, challenging the inaction of respondent No.4 in not refunding the court Fee of Rs.2,56,226t- as per the certificate of Refund of court Fee dt. 20ro112024, vide Dis'No.28 txrAcJr2o24 issued by the Xr Addr. chief Judge, city civil court' Hyderabad, that was paid by the petitioner herein vide charran dt'21r09r2021 in 0'S'No.1g4 0f 2020 before the fire of the Honourabre Xr Additional Chief Judge, City Civit Court. Hyderabad, as i,egal, arbitrary and against all settled principles of law and against the provisions of Legal services Authorities Act' 1gg7 and Articre 3oo(A) of the constitution of India and

¶19

consequently direct the respondent No.4 to refund the cou( Fee amount of Rs.2.56.226l- forthwith as per the certificate of Refund of court Fee dt 2010112024, vide Dis.No.2B rxrAcJr2o24 issued by the Xr Addr. chief Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad

¶20

].A.NO:1 OF 2024

¶21

Petition Under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.4 to refund the court Fee amount of Rs.2.s6,226r forthwith as per the certificate of Refund of court Fee dt. 20.01.2024, vide Dis No.28lXlACJr2o24 issued by the Xr Addr. chief Judge, city civir courr, Hyderabad, pending disposal of main writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt B.VAMSHIDHAR REDDY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Gp FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Gp FOR LAW AND LEG|SI-ATIVE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Gp FOR REVENUE

¶24

The Court made the following ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶26

\TRIT PETITION No.26456 of2o24

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of Ind.ia,

¶29

is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following relief:

¶30

'....,o r:ssue a Wit, Ord.er or Drection more patticularlg one in tlle tature of Writ of Mandamus claLenging the inactton of respndent No.4 in not rcJunding tl@ Coutt Fee of Rs.2,56,226/- a.s pet the Ceftifi.ate oJ Refund. of Coutt Fee dated 20/OI/2024 vid.e Ds.No.28/XIACI/ 2024 is*ed bg the XI Ad.,]t CNeJ Judge Citg Ciuil Coutt Hgderabad that wa.s paid bU the petitioner herein vid.e challan, d.ated 2l / O9/ 2O21 in O.S.No.1a4 oJ 2O2O beJore the fle of tle Honourable XI Ad.ditionat ChieJ Judge, Citg Ciuil Coutt, Hgderabad o-s ilkgal, arbitrary and qgain-st all sel4led. pinciples of law and ogainst the provision-s of Legdl Seruiqes Authorities Act, lg87 and Atticle 3OOA of the Constitution of In-d.id and consequently d.irect the reqrondent No.4 to reJund thE Court Fee amount of Rs.2,56, 226/- Iotthtuith ds per tle Ceftifi.cate of Refun-d oJ Court Fee dt 20/Ot/2024 uide Db.N1.2B/XIACI/ 2O24 issued bg the )U Addl ChiefJudge CitA,Au Coutt Hgderabad and to pass-..."

¶31

The case of the petitioner is that he has instituted a suit r,'rde O.S.No.184 of 2O2O on the file of XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the defendants therein for recovery of amount of RS.2,53,Z5,OOO/- along vrith interest @ L8o/o per annum. It is further case of the petitioner that pending adjudication of ttre said suit the petitioner/praintiff entered into an agreement/Memorandum of Understanding, dated 22.Og.2021 and accordingly the trial Court has referred the said suit to Lok Adalat to pass decree in terms of the provisions of Legal Services

¶32

¶33

CVBR, J Wp_26456_2024

¶34

Authorities Act, 1987. It is further stated that, recording the Memorandum of Understanding entered by the petitioner with the defendants in the said suit, the Lok Adatat has passed an award, dated02.12.2O22 in t"A,C.No.l655 of 2022 in O.S.No. 184 of 2O2O. It is further stated that thereafter, the petitioner made an application before the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad requesting to refund the Court Fee amount of Rs.2,56,226 / - deposited by way of challan at the time of filing the suit. It is stated that learned XI Additionat Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, uide letter No.24IXIACJ /2024, dated 20.O1.2024 requested the Revenue Divisional OfEcer, Hyderabad Division to refund the Court Fee paid by the petitioner, by way of challan in O.S.No.184 of 2O2O on the file of XI Aclditiona.l Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after receiving the said letter, respondent No.4 has not refunded the Court Fee amount paid by the petitioner.

¶35

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the peftioner and leamed Assistant Government pleader for Revenue. Perused the record.

¶36

CVBR, J wp_25456_2024

t I

0 I

tramed counsel for the petitioner rel5ring upon Section 2l (l) of kgd Services Authorities Act, tgg7 submitted that where a compromise or settlement has been arrived before the Lok Adalath, the Court Fee amount paid, in such a case, shall be refunded as per the procedure prescribed under Court fees Act, r870

¶41

In view of the letter addressed by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad uid.e letter No.24IXIACJ/2024, d,ated 2O.1O.2O24 to respondent No.4_ Revenue Divisional Oflicer, Hyderabad Division and since even after lapse of more thal 10 months, respondent No.4 has not considered for refund of the Court Fee amount to the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion tJ:at the ends of the justice would be met, if respondent No.4 is directed to examine the letter addressed by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civit Court, Hyderabad for refund of Court Fee amount to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶42

¶43

CVBR, J wp_26456_2024

¶44

6 With the above observations, writ petition is disposed. of

¶45

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

7 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶47

SD/. N.SRIHARI ASs/lqrxNr RE GISTRAR OFFICER LL};;."

¶48

//TRUE COPYII

¶49

¶50

1 The Princi pal Secreta Ambedkar ry,^Finance and^planni ng Department, Dr. B.R Bhavan, S ecretariat State of Tela ngana at Hyderabad.

¶51

1. The principal Secreta ry, Law and Legislation Departme nt, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar 3 Bhavan, Secretariat, Stale of Telangana at Hyderabad. The District Collector , Hyderabad Divtston, Hyderabad.

¶52

1. The Reve nue Divisio nal Officer Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad. 5. Telangana. Two CCs to [OUGP rlFO R FINANCE PLA NNING,Hig h Cou( for the State of o. lwo CCs to GP FOR REVENU E , High Court for the State of Telangana at

¶53

Hyderabad. lou IJTwo CCs to G P FOR LAWAN D LEGISLATIVE, High Court

¶54

7 for the State of Tela ngana at Hyderabad touTl 8 Two One CD CopCC to SRlesIB.VAMSHIDHAR REDDY , Advocate tOpUCl

¶55

SA BSR

)

HIGH COURT

DATED:0611112024

ORDER

WP.No.26456 of 2024

-==----
1 Y, e S t.,tr /C
,<
q (
(
!) 11 ilAB zoz5 C
,+
* t
Dt. sP,ilC utQ

¶64

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶65

WITHOUT COSTS.

Mr. Pathi Vilas Kumar, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Pathi Vilas Kumar, v. The State of Telangana

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

Maramraju Appa Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Maramraju Appa Rao Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Gangishetty Bikshapathi Vs The State of Telangana

Alegapally Srinivas Yadav Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Younus Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Marumamula Ramya Vs The State of Telangana