ORDER : (M. Ganga Rao, J.) 1. This writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of mandamus to the 2nd respondent Chairman cum II Additional District Judge, Mandal Legal Services Committee, Amalapuram to grant permission to the petitioner to sue as indigent person by exempting the Court fee for filing suit for damages, by setting aside the order passed in LCA.No.2 of 2022 by the 2nd respondent against the provisions of Sections 12 and 13 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 and the rules made thereunder. 2. The petitioner Sri Ganisetti Venkata Rajendra Prasad filed this writ petition by way of Party in Person, who is enrolled as an Advocate and dealing with his own cases. He states that he was a partner of ‘Prasad Rice Mill’ in Ganti Pedapudi village, P.Gannavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, which is within the jurisdiction of II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram. He was cheated by the other partners by forging his signatures showing that he was retired from the firm in the year 1992 and all his investment in the firm was withdrawn by them showing false withdrawals from the account in the firm. He filed a suit in O.P.No.47 of 1994 for dissolution of the firm and rendition of accounts of the firm before the Subordinate Court Judge, Razole and he was permitted to sue as indigent person and the said suit was registered and transferred to Senior Civil Judge Court, Kothapeta and numbered as O.S.No.40 of 2001 and the said suit was dismissed. He preferred appeal in A.S.No.701 of 2011 before this Court against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.40 of 2001 and the same is pending before this Court. While things stood thus, he came to know that other partners also forged his signatures and filed Form-V before the Registrar of Firms stating that he retired from the firm and because of forgery of signatures, he is being deprived from enjoying his share in the firm for 30 years. He is leading sorrowful life and depending on others for his maintenance. Even though he is suffering with kidney problem, he is not taking any treatment and is suffering from Gouty rheumatism by taking steroids. He got his Law degree at the age of 52 years with limited his practice to look after his own cases and he is having little practice. Even though he is suffering with kidney problem, he is not taking any treatment and is suffering from Gouty rheumatism by taking steroids. He got his Law degree at the age of 52 years with limited his practice to look after his own cases and he is having little practice. His partners in the Rice Mill are getting Rs.10 lakhs per year and they are distributing the same. Now, he filed suit for damages for depriving him his right of enjoying his share in the rice mill properties and loss of durable life because of the cheating and forgery committed by the other partners. 3. The petitioner having decided to file suit for damages against the other partners of firm ‘Prasad Rice Mill’ as indigent person, approached the Chairman cum II Additional District Judge, Mandal Legal Services Committee, Amalapuram by filing application for grant of exemption of payment of Court Fees and the same was rejected vide LAC.No.2 of 2022 dated 08.03.2022 referring to the decisions of this Court in Navya Infracon Projects Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others and Kopparthi Krishna Murthy Vs. District Legal Services Authority, West Godavari, Eluru. The authority also referred to Circular bearing Roc.No.5772/APSLSA/LSW/2010 dated 21.8.210 and G.O.Ms.No.73 dated 19.6.2007 and states that the rejection of grant of exemption is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 and the rules made thereunder. 4. It is apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of Legal Services Authority Act which entitles a person providing legal aid. 4. It is apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of Legal Services Authority Act which entitles a person providing legal aid. The provisions of Section 12 (h) of the Legal Services Authority Act reads thus: “(h) in receipt of annual income less than rupees nine thousand or such other higher amount as may be prescribed by the State Government, if the case is before a court other than the Supreme Court, and less than rupees twelve thousand or such other higher amount as may be prescribed by the Central Government, if the case is before the Supreme Court.” Section 13 (1) reads thus: “Entitlement of legal services.—(1) Persons who satisfy all or any of the criteria specified in section 12 shall be entitled to receive legal services provided that the concerned Authority is satisfied that such person has a prima facie case to prosecute or to defend.” The petitioner submitted an application to the 2nd respondent - Chairman cum II Additional District Judge, Mandal Legal Services Committee, Amalapuram for legal aid. In column 7 of the application, for ‘purpose of legal aid, it is stated that ‘exemption from court fee’. He also filed an affidavit along with the application, but the legal services authority without enquiry with regard to the existence of prima facie case, rejected the claim of the petitioner vide LAC.No.2 of 2022 dated 08.03.2022 referring to the judgment in a case between Kopparthi Krishna Murthy Vs. District Legal Services Authority, West Godavari, Eluru, for which one of us Justice M. Ganga Rao, J is a party to the said decision, wherein this Court while elaborately dealing with the various provisions of Legal Services Authority Act and the rules made thereunder and the GO issued, answering point No.1 “whether the Mandal/District/State Legal Services Authority is vested with the power to grant exemption from payment of court fees, for a litigant to seek remedies before a Civil Court”, this Court held as under: “31. As we have pointed out earlier, until the advent of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, there were only two institutions namely (1) the Government and (2) the Court, both of which had different types of powers. As we have pointed out earlier, until the advent of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, there were only two institutions namely (1) the Government and (2) the Court, both of which had different types of powers. While the State Government is conferred with the power to grant reduction or remission of the court fee, under Section 68 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, the power of the original Court under Order XXXIII and of the Appellate Court under Order XLIV of the Code of Civil Procedure is only to postpone the payment but not to grant reduction or remission of the court fee. Since the court fee is a State subject, the Parliament was careful, while enacting the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 not to use any expression such as reduction or remission or exemption from payment of court fees. On the contrary, Section 21(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 speaks only about refund of court fees. 32. Irrespective of whether the regulations framed by the State Authority under Section 29-A (1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is in excess of the power conferred or not, what is contemplated by regulation 25(b)(ii)(a) is only “the payment to the entitled person of court fee”. There is no provision (1) either in the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956; or (2) in the Code of Civil Procedure; or (3) in the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987; or (4) in the Rules framed by the Central or State Government; or (5) in the regulations framed by the Central or State Authorities, for the grant of a certificate of exemption from payment of court fees. If at all, the Legal Services Authorities, until the validity of regulation 25(b)(ii)(a) is tested, can order payment of court fee to the entitled person, but not order the grant of a certificate of exemption from payment of court fee, as it would be an encroachment into the territory occupied by a State Enactment. The District and Mandal Legal Services Authorities shall keep the statutory scheme in mind while dealing with the applications of this nature. 33. The District and Mandal Legal Services Authorities shall keep the statutory scheme in mind while dealing with the applications of this nature. 33. As a matter of fact, even before the advent of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the State of Andhra Pradesh issued a set of Rules known as “Andhra Pradesh State Legal Aid and Advice to the Poor Rules, 1980”. These Rules contained provisions for rendering legal aid and advice to the poor, but did not contain any provision for exemption from payment of court fees. 34. However, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 350 Home (Courts) Department, dated 17-06-1982, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 68 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, directing remission, in the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the fee chargeable in respect of any proceeding including suits and appeals initiated before any Court by a person, who came within the definition of the expression “aided person” in terms of the 1980 Rules. But the said Government order also stipulated that in the event of such aided person succeeding in his case, the amount of court fees, which would have been paid by him, shall be recoverable by the State Government from any party ordered by the Court in the decree to pay the same. 35. After the advent of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the Government issued a notification in G.O.Ms. No. 73 Law dated 19-06-2007, exempting persons entitled and provided with Legal Services under Sections 12 and 13 of the 1987 Act, from payment of court fees. This Government order was issued again in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 68 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. But this Government Order also made it clear that in the event of the persons provided with legal services succeeding in the proceedings, the amount of court fees shall be recovered by the State Government from the party ordered by the Court in the decree to pay the same. 36. But without understanding the scope and effect of such notifications, the District Legal Services Authorities were issuing certificates of exemption, in terms of 1980 Rules. This necessitated the Member Secretary of the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority to issue a circular bearing Roc. No. 5772/APSLSA/LSW/2010, dated 21-08-2010. 36. But without understanding the scope and effect of such notifications, the District Legal Services Authorities were issuing certificates of exemption, in terms of 1980 Rules. This necessitated the Member Secretary of the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority to issue a circular bearing Roc. No. 5772/APSLSA/LSW/2010, dated 21-08-2010. It was made clear in the said circular that the Legal Services institutions such as the Mandal/District/State Legal Services Authorities have no power or authority to issue a certificate of exemption from payment of court fees. Therefore, all that could be done by a person is to approach the concerned Legal Services Authority and seek the provision of legal services. If the concerned Legal Services Authority is satisfied that such a person satisfies the criteria specified in Section 12 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, then it may be open to the concerned authority to invoke the stipulations contained in the Government order G.O.Ms. No. 73 Law dated 19-06-2007 issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 68 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, subject, however, to the conditions stipulated in the said Government Order. The District Legal Services Authorities have no power or authority to issue a certificate of exemption from payment of court fee. But if a person approaches the concerned Legal Services Authority by way of an application for providing legal services enumerated under the provisions of Section 12 of the Legal Services Authority Act, which includes providing counsel and also payment of court fees, he is entitled for legal services only if he satisfies the concerned authority that he has a prima facie case to prosecute or to defend. With that certificate he is entitled to file suit through legal aid counsel before the concerned court based on providing legal aid on the basis of certificate. It may be open to the concerned court to invoke the stipulations contained in G.O.Ms.No.73 dated 19.6.2007 issued in exercise of power conferred under Section 68 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, however, subject to the conditions stipulated in the GO. 5. Heard the petitioner – Party in person (Practicing Advocate) and Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 6. 5. Heard the petitioner – Party in person (Practicing Advocate) and Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 6. We, having carefully considered the facts and circumstances and submission of the learned counsel and perused the material on record, found that the petitioner already filed suit in O.S.No.40 of 2001 for dissolution of the partnership firm and rendition of accounts in pro forma pauperis and the same is dismissed. Against the same, he preferred an appeal in A.S.No.701 of 2011 before this Court in pro forma pauperis and the same is pending adjudication. The petitioner created a grievance for himself that he is suffering from the misdeeds committed by the other partners and his signature was forged by the other partners to the effect he retired from partnership firm and filed Form V before the Registrar of Firms and deprived him from enjoying his share in the firm and thereafter due non-payment of his share of sale profits of the firm, he is being deprived of his livelihood and underwent sufferance mentally and physically thereby, he wants to file suit for damages all on hypothetical premises. Filing of suit for damages at this length of time after losing suit for dissolution and rendition of accounts, it could not be said that he has shown prima facie case to grant legal aid to pursue the suit for damages. He is indulged in frivolous, vexatious litigation and he is a practicing advocate. Even if the income of the petitioner is less than Rs.1.00 lakh, we are not inclined to relegate the matter to the District Legal Services Authority – 2nd respondent herein since no prima facie case is manifest and the petitioner is not entitled for any legal aid and with that certificate he could not file suit before the jurisdictional court and the same cannot be entertained. We have already gone through the entire record and the contentions and found that the suit for damages is only a frivolous and vexatious litigation before the Courts. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.