Telangana High Court

Vijay Gopal vs High Court Of Judicature For State Of ... on 2 April, 2025

Author: P.Sam Koshy

Bench: P.Sam Koshy

                                   Page 1 of 11




        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

                                      AND

  THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

                   Writ Petition No.32164 of 2024

ORDER:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

(party-in-person) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

praying the Court for the following reliefs, viz.,

(1) to permit the petitioner to pay only single set of fee i.e., One hundred rupees, having common cause as per Rule 4A of Writ Proceeding Rules 1977 of Telangana High Court to be followed, and to not collect excess fee from petitioner illegally irrespective of number of petitioners;

(2) to direct the respondents to not insist on processing fee, covers and rule nisi or CMP forms if the copy of the petitions have been served on the parties as per the Rule 6B and 7 of 1977 Writ Rules of Telangana High Court and to follow the law;

(3) to declare that the Court Fee for Writ (One hundred Rupees) is the only legitimate Court fee, and that separate Rs.15/- (Fifteen rupees) collection for order copy citing Court Copy fee is illegal as it is the right of the Writ Petitioner to get the order copy for the petition filed;

(4) to declare that the person, who is as Advocate, need not be insisted upon to appear before a Scrutiny committee in case of party-in-person filing Writ Petition as per the Rules of the Telangana High Court Writ Rules 1977 and also the person who is authorized to practice law under Section 30 of Advocates Act also can represent themselves and direct section to respondents

to register our Writ petition if they are in order (if ID card is annexed to documents proving to be Advocate); and

(5) to declare any standing orders, memo, circular, letter, guideline, scheme, policy, etc do not have force of law, under Article 13 of Constitution of India particularly when the said instructions add financial burden on the Advocates and implement the Writ Proceeding Rules 1977 of Telangana High Court strictly.

2. Heard Mr.Vijay Gopal (Party-in-Person) and

Mr.G. Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of

Mrs.K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. On the previous occasion, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of respondents, had taken time to get

instructions in the matter.

4. To-day when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned

Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that

since the relief sought for primarily seems to be for adhering to

the Rules that have been framed and applicable to the High

Court, a separate formal counter-affidavit may not be required

and therefore he is ready to argue the case basing on the rule

position.

5. In the given circumstances, we proceed to decide the five

reliefs (mentioned supra) one by one.

Re. : Relief No.1 :-

6. The first relief that the petitioner herein is seeking is in

respect of insistence by the Registry of the High Court in a writ

petition which has got more than one petitioner and where each

of the petitioner need to file individual Court Fee though a

common single Writ Petition is filed consisting of more than one

petitioner.

7. In this connection, the party-in-person relied on Clause

(11)(s) of Schedule II of the Telangana Court Fees and Suits

Valuation Act, 1956, wherein the Court Fees determined for a

writ petition under Article 226 other than a Writ of Habeas

Corpus or a petition under Article 227 has been notified as

Rs.100/-. However, this was subsequently amended as per Rule

4-A of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977, which Rule as on date

reads as under, viz.,

"4-A. Two or more persons raising common questions of law or persons have a common cause of action may join in a single Writ Petition paying a single set of Court-Fees."

8. Relying on the above, the party-in-person contended that

in the light of the said amended provision, even if there is more

than one petitioner challenging a common cause of action in a

single writ petition, all the petitioners need to file only a single

set of Court Fees and not individual Court Fee.

9. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side, we

are of the considered opinion that the said issue raised by the

petitioner already stands decided by a learned Division Bench of

the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of

G. Kondandaiah vs. Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh

Agricultual Development Bank, Hyderabad 1, wherein the

Court held at paragraph No.8, after relying upon a series of

judgments on the said issue in the past, held as under :

"8. This Court after Mota Singh case applied the rule of jural relationship whenever the issue is raised in this Court. In view of the numerous Bench decisions, it is obligatory for each individual petitioner to pay court fee unless jural relationship is established. Following the test in the cases elucidated by the Supreme Court the petitioners are ordered to pay separate court fee. Ordered accordingly in each of the above cases."

10. Further, we find that the said judgment has been based

upon an earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the

same issue in the case of Mota Singh vs. State of Haryana 2,

wherein the learned Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court at paragraph No.1 held as under :

1 1985 S.C.C. OnLine A.P. 181

2 (1981) 3 S.C.C. 652

"1. ... .... ... Having regard to the nature of these cases where every owner of a truck plying his truck for transport of goods has a liability to pay tax impugned in the petition, each one has his own independent cause of action. A firm as understood under the Partnership Act or a company as understood under the Indian Companies Act, if it is entitled in law to commence action either in the firm name or in the company's name, can do so by filing a petition for the benefit of the company or the partnership and in such a case court fee would be payable depending upon the legal status of the petitioner. But it is too much to except that different truck owners having no relation with each other either as partners or any other legally subsisting jural relationship of association of persons would be liable to pay only one set of court fee simply because they have joined as petitioners in one petition.

Each one has his own cause of action arising out of the liability to pay tax individually and the petition of each one would be a separate and independent petition and each such person would be liable to pay legally payable court fee on his petition. It would be a travesty of law if one were to hold that as each one uses highway, he has common cause of action with the rest of truck pliers."

11. Therefore, in the teeth of the aforesaid two authoritative

decisions, we do not intend to pass any orders so far as Relief

No.1 is concerned, except clarifying to the extent that in terms of

Rule 4-A of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977, in a given case, if

the number of petitioners are agitating the same cause of action,

like for instance, a petition has been filed by the legal heirs of a

particular deceased person, or where there is jural relationship

between the petitioners, in such circumstances, there would only

be requirement of payment of single set of Court Fees and not

otherwise. It is further clarified that in the event if there is more

than one petitioner aggrieved of their individual grievance and

having filed one writ petition for the reason that all the

petitioners seem to be having the same grievance in that case, it

would be individual cause of action for all the petitioners, and for

which they will have to pay individual Court Fees which as per

the Rule in vogue to-day would be (Rs.100/- x number of

petitioners).

Re. : Relief No.2 :-

12. As regards Relief No.2, so far as to not insist for processing

fee and payment for subsequent covers and rule nisi or CMP

forms (if the petitioners have already served on the parties with

proof of service) is concerned, we are of the considered opinion

that Rule 6(a)(3) & 6(b) of the Telangana High Court Rules The

Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 deals with the said issue. For

ready reference, the said Rule is extracted hereunder, viz.,

"6(a)(3).The petition shall be accompanied by as many authenticated copies of the petition, affidavit and the said documents as there are parties to be served and three additional sets for use of the Court. These shall be separately filed as paper books marking each set."

      ...     ...      ...

            6(b)   Where   the   petitioner       has   already   served   the

authenticated copies of the petition, affidavit and documents on

the party against whom such petition is filed it shall not be necessary to file copies for them under sub-rule (a) but the petitioner shall make a statement to that effect by an additional affidavit and produce proof of service of the documents."

13. As far as service of notice being served in advance to the

other side (i.e., respondent(s)) or to the parties is concerned, we

are of the considered opinion that Rule 6(b) (referred above)

makes it very clear that if the respondent's counsel has accepted

the notice in advance and has given proof of acceptance to the

counsel for petitioner and which is attached by way of an

additional affidavit along with proof of service to the writ petition,

then the Registry cannot insist upon for submission of extra set

of copies of the writ petition with covers and necessary

processing fee insofar as those respondents who had been served

with advance copy of the writ petition. At this juncture, we

would also like to clarify that so far as the other respondents

who have not been served, the proceedings in accordance with

the Rules particularly Rule 6 as also Rule 10 of the above Rules

would govern the field and the petitioner would be required to

adhere to the same.

Re.: Relief No.3 :-

14. As regards Relief No.3, that the petitioner has sought for so

far as insistence made by the Registry to make payment of

Rs.15/- towards collection of copy of order passed in a Writ

Petition is concerned, during the course of hearing, this Court

had been apprised of a Circular issued by the erstwhile High

Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in ROC.No.983/SO/2005,

dated 08.07.2010, which for ready reference is extracted as

under, viz.,

"In partial modification of the High Court's Circular 4th cited, it is hereby informed to all the Advocates that the depositing of a sum of Rs.15/- (Rupees fifteen) either in the form of cash or by affixture of Court fee stamps, at the time of filing the case for supply of Carbon Copy of all the Interim Order / Final Order is optional. The Registry is directed not to insist for the deposit of Rs.15/- (Rupees fifteen) at the time of filing of the cases. It is further directed to receive the said amount of Rs.15/- (Rupees fifteen) towards carbon copies in Interim / Final Order, if voluntarily deposited by the Advocates / Parties at the time of filing of the cases."

15. Mr. G. Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf respondents, accepted the fact that the above Circular is

still in force and that requirement of payment of Rs.15/- for

getting a copy of the order is not mandatory as is evident from

the said Circular and, that it is only a voluntary service being

made available to the petitioners. If the petitioner does not want

a copy to be served upon him, then the petitioner need not pay

the said sum of Rs.15/-.

16. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that in the light

of the said Circular and also the submissions made by the

learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, we do not find any

further requirement of passing orders or giving instructions to

the respondents on this point. Nonetheless, if the petitioner, at

any point of time, needs a copy of an order he will have to pay

required copying charges as prescribed for getting a copy of

order.

Re. : Relief No.4 : -

17. As regards Relief No.4, in respect of an Advocate who

intends to appear in person to represent his case, the said issue

has already been dealt with by this very Bench in the case of

B. Saramma vs. The State of Telangana 3, wherein this Bench

taking into consideration the proviso to Rule 33B(3) of the

Appellate Side Rules of the High Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad, especially the proviso to Sub-Rule thereof, had made

the following observations at paragraph Nos.3 and 4, which are

as under :

"3. At the outset, we find from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no material to show that the petitioner in the instant case has been stopped to

Writ Petition (S.R.) No.6779 of 2025, dated 20.02.2025

argue his / her case appearing in person. Moreover, from the pleadings, it is evidence that the petitioner, for whom Mr. B. Subhash is representing, is herself a Lawyer. In the said situation, proviso to Rule 33B(3) of the aforesaid Rules clearly stipulate that where the party-in-person is a practicing Advocate, then the requirement for certification from the Committee concerned under Rule 33 is not required.

4. We do not see any reason why the petitioner, if he / she being a Lawyer, intends to appear in person, can be denied from appearing in the case. Nonetheless, we make it clear that in the event if the said person engages a Lawyer, through a duly executed Vakalat, it would not be permitted for the Lawyer as well as the party to both argue their case. The party, if he / she chooses to argue his / her case personally, they will have to first withdraw the Vakalat assigning reasons for withdrawal and then they can appear in person."

18. Given the said proviso to Rule 33B(3) of the Appellate Side

Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad and also the

decision in the case of B. Saramma (supra), we make it clear

that where a lawyer intends to appear in person in his personal

case then the insistence of a certificate from the concerned

Committee cannot be insisted upon. Accordingly, Relief No.4 is

answered.

Re. : Relief No.5 :-

19. As regards Relief No.5 is concerned, we are of the

considered opinion that the nature of relief sought for amounts

to deciding beyond the scope and ambit of the writ jurisdiction.

At this juncture, there is no particular order or circular or