High Court of Judicature For State Of Telangana · 2025

High Court of Judicature for State of Telangana, Rep Qy Deputy Reg. istrar, Filhg Section, 9F9C plus MRQ, High Court Rd, Near Government City Col6ge, High Court, bhansi Bazaal, Hyderabad, Telangana 500066 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia 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 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus 1. To declare the Writ Petitioners need to pay only single set of fee i.e. (One hundred rupees) having common cause, as per Rule 44 of Writ Proceeding Rules '1977 of Telangana High Court to be followed and NOT to collect excess fee from petitioners illegally irrespective of number of petitioners 2. To direct the respondents to NOT insist on Processing Fee, subsequently the covers and rule nisi or CMP forms, if the copy of the petitions have been served on the parties, as per the Rule 68 and 7 of 1977 Writ Rules of Telangana High Court and io follow the law 3. To declare that the Court Fee for Writ (One hundred rupees) is the only legitimate Court fee and separate Fifteen rupees collection for order copy, citing court copy fee is illegal and 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 Advocate, need NOT be insis;ted to appear before a Scrutiny committee, in case of party in person Writ Petiticns, as per the Rules of the Telangana High Court Writ Rules 1977 and also the person who is authorized to practice law und,3r section 30 of Advocates Act also can represent themselves and direct section tc, respondents to register our Writ p,etition if they are in order (if lD card is annexe C to documents proving to be Advccate) 5. To declare any standing orders memc, circular, Ietter, guideline, scheme policy, etc. do NOT have force of law, under Article 13 of Constitution of lnd a, particularly when the said instructions add ,inancial burden on the Advocates and implement the Writ Proceeding Rules 1g77 of Telangana High Court strictly 6. Any other order or orders, this court may deern fit and proper under the circumstances of this case. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. VIJAY GOPAL (PARTY lN PERSON) Counsel for the Respondents: SRI c. VIDYASAGAR REp., FOR SMT. K UDAYA SRI The Court made the following: ORDER (4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SA"M KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA Writ Petitlon No.32 L64 of 2024 ORDER: ftter Hon'ble Si 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', to permit the petitioner to pay only single set of fee i'e ' (1) 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; (21 to direct tl.e 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 68 and 7 of lg77 WitRules of Telangana High Court and to follow the law; to declare that the Court Fee for Writ (One hundred (3) 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 tJle right of the Writ Petitioner to get tl.e order copy for the Petition frled; to declare that the person, who is as Advocate ' need not (4) 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 L977 and also the person who is authorized to practice law under Section 3O of Advocates Act also can represent themselves and direct section to respondents r to register our Writ petition if they are in order (if ID card is annexed to documents proving to be Advocate); arLd to declare any standing orders, memo, ,:ircu1ar, letter, t5) guideline, scheme, policy, etc do not have force of lau., under Article I 3 of Constitution of india particuiarly when l.he said instructions add financial burden on the Advocatr:s ald implemen the Writ Proceeding Rules 1977 of Telangara High Court strictly.

2. Heard Mr.Vijay Gopal (Party-in-Person) and Mr.G. Vidyasasar, learned Senior Counsel appearing c)n behalf of Mrs.K. Udayzr Sri, learned counsel for the respondents,

3. On th e previous occasion, learned Senior. Counsel appearing orr behalf of respondents, had taken time to get instructions in the matter

4. To-day $,hen the matter is taken up for hearirrg, leamed Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that since the reli,el' sought for primarily seems to be for a.dhering to the Rules that have been framed and applicable tc, the High Court, a separate formal counter-afhdavit may not b e required and therefore he is ready to argue the case basing o.n the rule position.

5. In the gjven circumstances, we proceed to deci<je the five reliefs (mentic,ned 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. In this connection, the part5r-in-person relied on Clause 7. (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 Articl e 226 other than a Writ of Habeas Colpus or a petition under Articl e 227 tras been notified as Rs.1O0/-. 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. TttLo or rrLore persorls raising common .questiort's of lanu or persons Ltaue a common cause of action mag ioin in a single Writ Petition paging 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 or:ily a single set of Colrrt Fees and not indirridual Court Fee.

9. Having heard the contentions put forth on eith,er side, we are of the considered opinion t1lat the said issue rased by the petitioner already stalds decided by a learned Division Bench of the erstu,hile High Court of Andhra Pradesh. in the case of G. Kondandaiah vs. Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Agricultual Development Bank, Hyderabadr, wherein the Court held at paragraph No.S, after re\ring upon i:r series of judgments on the said issue in the past, held as under. : "8. TLtt:; Court afier Mota Singh case applied the rule of jural relationship wheneuer the issue is raised in this Court. In uietu of the nume,rous Bench decisions, it is obligatory for ertch indiuidual petitioner to pag court fee unless jural relationship is established. Follou.tinll the test in the cases elucidated bg the Supreme: Court the petitiotTers are ordered to pqA separate court fee. Ctrdered. accot'dingt\1 in each of the aboue cases." 1(). Further, we Iind 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 Haryanaz, wherein the learned Division Bench of the Hon,ble, Supreme Court at paragr,aph No.1 held as under : t 1985 S.C.C. O:rl,ine A.P. 181 2 (1981) 3 S.C.Cr. 652 ,^ "1.... -... ... Hauing regord. to the nature of these coses u-there euery ou.tner of a tntck ptging his tru6k for trdn-sport of goods Ln's a liobilitg to paA tox impugned in the petition, each one hos his oun independent cause of action. A firm as understood under the Partnership Act or a companA as understood under the Indian Companies Act, if it is entitled in lau to commence action either in the finn nome or in the comltang's name, can do so bg filing a petition for the benefit of the compang or the partnership and in such a case court fee uould be pagable depending upon th-e tegal status of tle petitioner. But it is too much to except tLnt different truck otaners hauing rto telation tuith each otler either as partners or ang other legallg subsisting jurol relation'sh)p of ossociation of persons uould be tiable to pog only one set of court fee simplg because theg hnue joined as petitioners in one petition' F.ach one hns his otan cause of action arising out of tle liabilitg to paA tox indiuiduatlg and tle petition of each one utaid be o separote and independent petition and- each such person utould be liabte to pag tegallg pagable court fee on his petition' It uould be a trauestg of lattt if one tDere to hold thttt as each one uses highttag, he hrrs common cause of action uith 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 agltating the same cause of action' like for instance, a petition has been frled 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. 11- s further clarified that in the event if th,ere is more than one petitioner aggrieved of their individuat griervance and having filed one writ petition for the reason th at all the petitioners seem to be having the same grievanr:e in that case, it would be individua-l cause of action for all the petitioners, and for which the.y vrill have to pay individual Court Fees which as per the Rule in vogue to-day would be (Rs. 1OO/- x trumber of petitioners). Re. : Relief No.2 :- L2. As regards Relief No.2, so far as to not insist for processing fee and payrnent for subsequent covers and ntle nr,sl or CMp forms (if the petitioners have already served on the parties with proof of service) is concerned, we are of the considerr:d opinion that Rule 6(a)(3) & 6(b) of the Telangana High Court Rules The Writ Proceed::ngs Rules, 1977 deals with the said is;sue. For ready referenr:t:, the said Rule is extracted hereunder, r,iz., "61a.1(3).The petition shall be accompanied bg us mang authentic,tted copies of the petition, offidauit cLnd. thet said doanments as there are parties to be serued and three additional sets for use of the Court. These shalt be separatelg fiied as paper boak.s marking each set.,, 6(b) Where tlrc petitioner hrzs alreadg sen.tet;l the authenticated copies of the petition, affidauit and_ cloanmerts on the partg against tthom such petition is filed it shall not be necessary to file copies for them under sub-tule (a) but tLe petitioner sfutll make a statement to thnt effect bg an additional affiauit and produce proof of seruice 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 affrdavit along with proof of service to the writ petition, then the Registry canno( insist upon for submission of extra set of copies of the writ petition with covers and necessary processing fee ir${ar as those respondents who had been served with advance copy of the writ petition. At this juncture, we /1 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 1O of the above Rules would govern the field ald 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 t /\"1 Rs.15/- towards collection of copy of order passeil in a Writ Petition is ccncerned, during the course of hearing, this Court had been apprised of a Circular issued by the ersl.while High Court of Anrihra Pradesh, Hyderabad in ROC.No.983/SO/2OOS, dated 08.07.11010, which for ready reference is e>:tracted as under, viz., "ln partial mod.ificotion of the High Court's Cira,tlar 4th cited, it is herebg informed to all the Ad.uocates tltat the depositirtg of a sum of Rs.15/- (Rupees f.fieen) etther in the form of cash c'r bg affinu"re of Court fee stamps, at the time of fiting the case for supplg of Carbon Copg of all the Interirn Ord.er ,/ Final Order is optional. The Registry is directed not tc, insist for the deposit csJ Rs. I 5/ - (Rupees fi.fieen) at the time c,f filtng of the ca.ses. It i; further directed to receiue the said. am.ount of lils.lS/_ (Rupees ,rtJleen) touards corbon copies in Interim ,r Final C'rd.er, if uoluntailg deposited bg the Aduocates / parties at the t ime of filing of t,1e cases.'

15. Mr. G. \'idyasagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on beha-lf resporLdents, accepted the fact that the above rlircular is still in force rind that requirement of payment of Fis. 15/_ for getting a cop'F of the order is not mandatory as is evident from the said Circular and, that it is only a voluntar5z ser.vice being made availabie to the petitioners. If the petitioner doer:; not want a copy to be 'served upon him, then tl.e petitioner necd not pay the said sum rr'Rs. 15/-. L6. 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 arry point of time, needs a copy of aI order he will have to pay required copying charges as prescribed for getting a copy of order. Re. : Relief No.4 : - L7. As regards Relief No.4, in respect of al Advocate who intends to appea-r 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 Telanganas, wherein this Bench taking into consideration the proviso to Rule 338(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, tue find from the submissiort's made bg the leamed counsel for tte petitioner that there is no mtfierial to shou that the Petitioner in tle instant e ltas been stoPPed to I writ Petition (s.R.) No.677g ot 2a25, daled 2o'o2'2o25 1 <-..\ argue his / her co.se appeaing in person. Moreouer, from the pleadings, it A euidence that the petitioner, for uthom Mr. B. SubLnsh is representing, i"s herself a Lauger In the said sihtation, prouiso to Rule 338(3) of the aforesaid Rules clearlg stipulate that u'here the partg-in-person is a practicing Ad)ocate, then the requirement for certification from the Cortmittee conce-nred under Rule 33 is not reqtired.

4. We do not see onA feason uhg ttLe petitioner, if fu, / she being a l,auger, intends to appear in persory can be denied from appeaing in the case. Noneth.eless, ue make it <:lear tha:,. in the euen,l. if ti'te said person engages a La uAer, through :t dulg executed \lakalat, it tt-tould not be pennilted for the Louqer as uell :ts t,\e, partg to both argue their case. The poftg, if fu:: / she choo:;es ro ergue his / her case personallg, they ui.ll haue to fi.rst Luitfulrau) the Vakalat a.ssigning rea-sotts for uithd_rotuitl and then theg, can appear in person."

18. Given tl-re said proviso to Rule 338(3) of the App,ellate Side Rules of the lligh Court of Judicature at Hyderabad ald also the decision in the case of B. Saramma (supra), we mal<e it clear that where a lawyer intends to appear in person in his personal case then th.e insistence of a certifrcate from the concerned Committee cerLnot 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 considerecl oprinion that the nature of relief sought for. amounts to deciding be5'ond the scope and ambit of the writ ju risdiction. guideline(s) which is under challenge. Therefore, it is always left open to the petitioner to individually challenge as and when the need so arises.

20. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

21. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. To, SD/. N.CHANDRA SEKHAR E UTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER \ 2 1 The Reoistrar General. Hiqh court of Judicature for state of Telangana, 9F9C MnO,'Hlqh Corrt nO, Nea-r Government City College, High Court, Ghansi Bazaar, Hyderabad, Telangana 500066 The Reoistrar Judicial-l, Hiqh Court of Judicature for State of Telangana' sFgc'oiri MRO. Flrqh Cou"rt Ro, Near Government City College, High Court' Ghandi Bazaar, Hyd-erabad, Telangana 500066 The Deoutv Reoistrar, Hiqh court of Judicature for state of Telangana, Filing s.itioni eFsc fltus nanol High Court Rd, Near Gove-rnment City College' High Cdurt, Gh'ansi Bazaar, Flyderabad, Telangana 500066 J One CC to SRl. VIJAY GOPAL (PARTY lN PERSON) [OPUC] . One CC to SMT. K UDAYA SRI Advocate [OPUC] . Two CD CoPies 4 E b KKS PSK HIGH COURT DATED:0210412025 CC TODAY t ) -) <: 1..,s , :3'"'-' Y '14 rc' 0 z ni,t 219 t .l's ,!+ + ORDER WP.No.32164 ot 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS