Detenues are entitled to exemption from court fees and stamp duty under section 67(10) of the Andhra Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956.

ORDER :

1. In these petitions filed by each of the three petitioners who have been detained under the Defence of India Rules, the office has raised several objections, which I shall deal with seriatim, viz..

2. That under rule 35 of the Appellate Side Rules, proceedings or communication received by post or telegram shall not be accepted, and that under rule 1 of the Rules framed to regulate proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution read with rule 34 of the Appellate Side Rules, all petition shall be filed in person in the office of the Registrar, by the petitioner or his duly authorised Advocate or Attorney. It is obvious that rule 35 has to be waived because though generally it can be complied with by persons who are not in detention; in so far as those persons who are in detention, they cannot present petitions personally unless they first make a request to the Court to which they wish to present applications or petitions to have them brought before the Court, and then present them personally. The alternative is only to send them by post or present them through the Superintendent of Jail for being forwarded to the Court.

3. Mr Advocate-General states that there are instructions to the Jail authorities that on the applications being presented to the Superintendent of Jail for being presented to the Court, the Superintendent of Jail must transmit them to the Court. These instructions are complied with, and in any case. I find that it will not be expedient in the present circumstances to insist the detenues to be brought here merely to present the petitions. The rule will have to be suitably amended for allowing for the exception in the case of detenues. The compliance with it is waived accordingly.

4. In so far as the second objection is concerned, when the Rules do not provide for authorising for either any Advocate or Attorney, for the same reasons, that objection also is waived.

5. Under rule 52 of the Appellate Side Rules when a petition is presented by a party in shall be signed or marked by him, and such signature or mark shall be acknowledged before the Officer and persons mentioned therein who shall certify in the form set forth in the slid rule. The form set forth in the rule is as follows:—

“The contents of this petition were explained by me and the signature or mark (Signatures or marks) made (or acknowledged) before me on the day of … …196.”

6. Rule 52 omits any such certification in the case where the petition is presented by an Advocate. The Superintendent of Jail has merely attested it without the necessary certification. He could just have easily complied with this rule. This matter is brought to the notice of the Superintendent of Jail viz., that in cases where detenues have signed petitions, they must comply with this rule, and append a certificate in the terms set out therein. For the present, this requirement is waived inasmuch as all the detenues have themselves in their own hand not only made the petitions but also drawn out the contents of the affidavits which they have sworn to. They will be deemed to have understood the nature and tenor of the application, and the affidavit.

7. Since petition No. 1 has been filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari copy of the order under G.O. Ms. No. 1190 of 1964 sought to be quashed shall be filed duly stamped with a Court-fee of Rs. 2 and that the Writ Petition should be stamped with a Court-fee of Rs. 100 under Article 11(s) of Schedule II of the Andhra Court-fees Act, 1956.

8. Taking the 5th objection first, the office have cited a decision in Loganatha Naicker v. Kuppammal1, in support of the contention that the exemption cannot be granted inasmuch as detention in prison does not relate to any conviction. It is further submitted that otherwise the entire civil litigation will be prosecuted invoking the provisions of clause (10) of section 67 without payment of any Court-fee. I cannot accept this contention. The learned Advocate-General has quite prope