Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 486 (ORI)

Sanjulata Gochhayat v. State of Orissa

2011-09-14

B.N.MAHAPATRA, V.GOPALA GOWDA

body2011
ORDER 14.09.2011 — Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2.Having regard to the nature of prayer seeking for quashing of the order dated 20.05.2011 (Annexure-4) passed by the learned District Legal Services Authority, Cuttack, wherein request of the petitioner being a woman for legal aid for sanction of Rs.11,857.50 for payment of duty payable to obtain the succession certificate to get the death benefits of her husband working in the East Coast Railway. The District Legal Services Authority, Cuttack has rejected the application applying Regulation 15(a) of the Orissa State Legal Services Authority Regulations, 1996 (hereinafter called as “Regulations”, in short) and the same has been challenged in this writ petition. 3.Mr. Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the interpretation given to Regulation 15(a) of the Regulations defeats the object of the constitutional mandate to render equal justice to the people who are in economically disadvantageous position particularly the women being the weaker sections of the society. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order is in contravention to Article 39A of the Constitution. 4.The object of Article 39A of the Constitution is to see that legal aid must be given to the economical disadvantageous person, particularly to the women of the country as they are considered to be the weaker sections of the society. Further, he has contended that there is no income criteria for the purpose of rendering legal assistance and legal aid, such as court fee, process fee and incidental expenses incurred for the litigation by a woman. 5.Learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. Nayak sought to justify the order impugned in this writ petition contending that the District Legal Services Authority has rightly interpreted Regulation 15(a) of the Regulations and the stamp duty is payable by the petitioner to obtain succession certificate from the office of jurisdictional court as required under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act. Therefore, rejection of the application of the petitioner is perfectly legal and valid. 6.We are required to examine the following questions that would arise for consideration in this case: (i)Whether Regulation 15(a) of the Orissa State Legal Services Authority Regulations, 1996 entitles the petitioner to get the duty payable on the succession certificate ? (ii)What order ? Therefore, rejection of the application of the petitioner is perfectly legal and valid. 6.We are required to examine the following questions that would arise for consideration in this case: (i)Whether Regulation 15(a) of the Orissa State Legal Services Authority Regulations, 1996 entitles the petitioner to get the duty payable on the succession certificate ? (ii)What order ? 7.The first question is required to be answered in favour of the petitioner for the following reasons: For this purpose, it would be suffice to refer Article 39A of the Constitution, which reads thus: “39A. Equal justice and free legal aid. - The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.” 8.The said Article 39A of the Constitution is inserted by way of constitutional forty second amendment Act of 1976 with effect from 3.1.1977 to render social justice to the economic disadvantageous persons to see that their constitutional and statutory rights of such persons can be enforced by giving equal opportunity to secure equal justice from the Courts as the Constitutional mandates. Articles 14 and 39A are the fundamental rights and directive principles of State Policy. Regulation 15(a) of the Regulations must be interpreted to achieve the constitutional mandate as envisaged under the Preamble of the Constitution i.e. Justice, social, economic and political. In this case the helpless lady has lost her husband during the course of employment and to get her financial benefit, which are due to the deceased from his employer, law mandates that she must produce succession certificate by initiating proceedings under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act. The procedure requires to obtain the succession certificate for the purpose of the amount due to be recovered from the employer on the basis of the duty money payable is required to be paid by the petitioner. Since, the petitioner is an economically disadvantageous person, she had approached the District Legal Services Authority to sanction Rs.11,587.50 to pay the duty money for the aforesaid purpose. 9.While examining the claim of the petitioner, the District Legal Services Authority has interpreted literally Regulation 15(a) of the Orissa (State) Legal Services Authorities Regulations, 1996. Since, the petitioner is an economically disadvantageous person, she had approached the District Legal Services Authority to sanction Rs.11,587.50 to pay the duty money for the aforesaid purpose. 9.While examining the claim of the petitioner, the District Legal Services Authority has interpreted literally Regulation 15(a) of the Orissa (State) Legal Services Authorities Regulations, 1996. The said rule must be given harmonious interpretation to achieve the laudable fact of rendering social, economic justice particularly equal justice to the woman folk of the country. Therefore, Regulation 15(a) is required to be interpreted to achieve the object of interpretation made by the District Legal Services Authority, Cuttack is not tenable in law. If such interpretation is given, the whole constitutional object will be defeated. The object of Article 39A of the Constitution is to see that social justice must be given effect to the people, who are unable to get equal justice from the concerned institutions including the judiciary. 10.For the aforesaid reasons, we quash the impugned order dated 20.05.2011 (Annexure-4) and direct the District Legal Services Authority, Cuttack to sanction Rs.11,587.50 in favour of the petitioner immediately. 11.The writ petition is accordingly, allowed. Rule be issued. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Petition allowed.