ORDER :

C. Praveen Kumar, J.

The present writ petition is filed, to declare the orders passed on 09.03.2022 by respondent no.1 is against (a) Section 12(a) or Section 12(h) of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987; (b) the ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manoharan vs. Sivaranjan and others in Civil Appeal No.10581 of 2013, arising out of SLP(C) No.23918 of 2012, dated 25.11.2013 and (c) Article 39-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent no.1 to grant Court Fee exemption certificate payable on the plaint, to the petitioner.

2. The facts, which lead to filing of the writ petition, are as under:-

(a) The petitioner herein filed a suit against respondent nos.2 to 5 for recovery of suit amount of Rs.1,21,233/- before the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur. The petitioner has to pay a Court Fee of Rs.3726/-. As the petitioner has no capacity to pay the Court Fee, filed a petition to send the plaint to Mandal Legal Services Authority, Nandikotkur, for exemption in payment of Court Fee.

(b) The trial Court returned the plaint with an endorsement that the suit papers be placed before the Mandal Legal Service Chairman, and if any exemption is given for payment of Court Fee, the same may be filed before the Court. When the plaint along with the application was submitted before the concerned, it was returned on 10.02.2022 with an endorsement that exemption for payment of Court Fee cannot be given. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the Mandal Legal Services Authority, Nandikotkur, rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of exemption in payment of Court Fee.

3. Sri Budige Rangaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner took us through Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 [for short, “the Act”], to contend that exemption in payment of Court Fee has to be given, if the plaintiff is a person belonging to a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. He also relies upon a judgment in Manoharan vs. Sivaranjan & others, 2014 SAR (Civil) 22 in support of his plea.

4. On the other hand, Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 would submit that Section 12 of the Act nowhere contemplates granting any exemption from payment of Court Fee to a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. According to him, it only speaks about the extending legal services under the Act to the members of Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe. He also relies upon a Division Bench Judgment of Composite High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Kopparthi Krishna Murthy vs. District Legal Services Authorities, West Godavari, Eluru and Others, 2018(2) ALD 678 in support of his plea.

5. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 12 of the Act, which reads as under:-

12. Criteria for giving legal services.—Every person who has to file or defend a case shall be entitled to legal services under this Act if that person is—

(a) a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe;

(b) a victim of trafficking in human beings or begar as referred to in article 23 of the Constitution;

(c) a woman or a child; 4

[(d) a person with disability as defined in clause (i) of section2 of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996);]

(e) a person under circumstances of underserved want such as being a victim of a mass disaster, ethnic, violence, caste atrocity, flood, drought, earthquake or industrial disaster; or

(f) an industrial workman; or

(g) in custody, including custody in a protective home within the meaning of clause (g) of section2 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (104 of 1956), or in a juvenile home within the meaning of clause (j) of section 2 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (53 of 1986), or in a psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing h