Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1394 (KER)

Linsaraji G. D/o Rajendran v. State Of Kerala

2017-11-09

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, SHIRCY V.

body2017
JUDGMENT : Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. The petitioners [as many as 50 persons] who were the applicants in different O.A.s, such as O.A. Nos. 2339, 2371, 2250, 2329, 2281, 2388, 2143, 2026, 1873, 1782, 1672 and 1674 of 2016 filed before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, have filed this Original Petition, joining together, challenging the common order dated 23.05.2017 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in the different O.A.s 2. The Original Petition stands numbered by the Registry. When it came up for admission before this Court, a doubt was expressed by this Court as to whether a 'common O.P.’ as now presented before this Court, would be maintainable, although it arises from the 'common order' dealing with the different O.A.s. The learned counsel for the petitioners sought to assert the maintainability with reference to Rule 147A of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 and also the ruling rendered in Mariamma Punnose Vs. Tahsildar, Kunnathunad [1979 KHC 182] and in M. Leonard Ashok Vs. Commerical Tax Officer - 1 and others [2007 (1) KHC 67] contending that the persons, having a common cause of action, can join together and file a single petition, provided, necessary court fee is satisfied. 3. The decisions cited across the Bar do not deal with a situation where different petitioners/applicants had filed different O.As/writ petitions before the Tribunals/this Court, ultimately leading to common order passed by the Tribunal/Court in the said cases and later approaching the higher Court together filing a single appeal/Original Petition as in the instant case. The issue can be viewed from another angle as well. The present Original Petition itself runs to 576 pages. Obviously, the number of petitioners in different Original Applications and the number of respondents were different. The prayer in the instant case is to extend similar benefit as given by this Court to the petitioners vide judgment dated 23.05.2017 in O.P. (KAT) No. 125 of 2017 and connected cases. The present Original Petition itself runs to 576 pages. Obviously, the number of petitioners in different Original Applications and the number of respondents were different. The prayer in the instant case is to extend similar benefit as given by this Court to the petitioners vide judgment dated 23.05.2017 in O.P. (KAT) No. 125 of 2017 and connected cases. If such a relief is given in the instant case by passing a (common) verdict and if any of the party respondents is aggrieved of the same, in relation to the relief sought for in the particular Original Application and wants to challenge it by approaching the Apex Court or by filing a review petition before this Court, it may become obligatory for the said party to raise such challenge, arraying all the petitioners in this O.P. [all of whom were not parties to the particular Original Application filed before the Tribunal]. In so far as they are having no connection with regard to the issue in the particular case [where they were not parties], such persons will have to be impleaded quite unnecessarily in the party array. Steps may have to be taken, producing sufficient number of copies of the proceedings [running to 576 pages] to be served to all the respondents, so as to make it free from 'defect' in any manner. This, will unnecessarily increase the work load of the Registry and this Court as well; besides pecuniary loss to the litigant and other undue hardships. That apart, if at all any reference is to be made to the respondents, since the serial number of the respondents are different in the different O.A.s, it will be practically difficult for this Court. Same is the position with regard to the reference, if at all any, made to the Annexures produced in different O.A.s, as same/similar nomenclature will be there in all the O.A.s. As it stands so, the proceedings ought to have been noted 'defective' by the Registry, enabling the petitioners to file separate Original Petitions in respect of the separate Original Applications. 4. We note in this context, that similar issue had come up for consideration earlier as well. 4. We note in this context, that similar issue had come up for consideration earlier as well. Though the issue was not dealt with in detail, in so many words, the course of action to be pursued was made clear in the order passed in O.P. (KAT) No. 1439 of 2013 dated 8.04.2013, on the 'administrative side', instructing the Registry to ensure that the separate proceedings are filed in this regard. 5. There however arises another question, as to the huge court fee paid by the petitioners altogether [Rs.5000/-] and the further course of action, if no merit adjudication is possible, as it now stands. Section 70 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act [herein after referred to as the Act] enables the party concerned to claim refund, if no merit adjudication is involved. On an earlier occasion, when such a course was pursued and the court fee remitted was ordered to be refunded, the Registry expressed a doubt as to whether it was possible, by virtue of the mandate of Section 69 of the Act, where refund is provided only to an extent of 50%. Accordingly, the matter was again placed before the learned single Judge who ordered refund. The matter was considered elaborately and it was held that, Section 69 only deals with a case where a decision is made by the Court based on the admissions or compromise, and hence not applicable. 6. When a case is 'decided', based on the admission or compromise, the fact remains that there is involvement of Court making an adjudication, on the basis of such admission/compromise. In the said circumstance, 50% of court fee paid alone could be refunded, in terms of Section 69 of the Act. Unlike Section 69, Section 70 enables refund, when the court fee remitted was by way of mistake. In other words, under Section 70 of the Act, there is absolutely no adjudication exercise by the Court to detain ½ of the court fee, as stipulated under Section 69 of the Act. There is no restriction under Section 70 of the Act, that it will be applicable only in respect of a suit or other proceedings or that it will not be applicable to a case filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It has been made clear by another Division Bench of this Court in Sankunni Somadhan Vs. There is no restriction under Section 70 of the Act, that it will be applicable only in respect of a suit or other proceedings or that it will not be applicable to a case filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It has been made clear by another Division Bench of this Court in Sankunni Somadhan Vs. Vinodhini Amma [ 2000 (1) KLT 640 ] that there is 'inherent power' for this Court to order refund of court fee under such circumstances. We fully concur with the said finding. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Original Petition, without any merit adjudication, with liberty to file proper proceedings. We find it appropriate to grant the said prayer and permit the O.P. to be withdrawn, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. In the above circumstances, we find that the petitioners are entitled to get refund, in terms of Section 70 of the 'Act'. It is ordered accordingly.