JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the petitioner appearing in person and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent.

2. The prayer in the writ petition filed in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation is for issuing a writ of mandamus against the State of Karnataka to grant 100% court fee refund in the cases settled by adopting any of the modes provided in Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the said Code'). The petitioner appearing in person, who is a member of the Bar, has invited our attention to the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Act of 1958') as amended by the Act No.9 of 2015. He pointed out that by virtue of the said amended provision of sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the Act of 1958, in case of settlement of disputes by any one of the modes of settlement referred to in Section 89 of the said Code, only 75% of the amount of court fees is refundable.

3. The petitioner invited our attention to the fact that several other States have a provision for grant of 100% refund of the court fees in case of such settlement. He also invited our attention to the observations made in paragraph 63 of a well known decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Salem Advocates Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344. He submitted that the Court Fees Act, 1870 (for short, 'the Central Court Fees Act') provides for 100% refund of the court fees paid on a suit which is settled by one of the four modes of settlement of dispute referred in sub-section (1) of Section 89 of the said Code. He submitted that the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision has recommended to all the State Governments to make amendments to the local Court Fees Act for bringing the same in conformity with Section 16 of the Central Court Fees Act.

4. The petitioner further pointed out that the states of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have made suitable amendments accordingly. He also invited our attention to the amendments made by the states of Maharashtra and Goa by which the local Court Fees Acts have been amended on par with Section 16 of the Central Court Fees Act. He submitted that the State of Karnataka has not taken any measure in this regard as suggested by the Apex Court by providing for 100% refund of the court fees.

5. In support of his contentions, the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions rendered by Division Benches of the Bombay High Court :

(i) W.P. No.4919/2014 decided on 1st October, 2014 in the matter of Sanjeevkumar Harakchand Kankariya v. Union of India and others and

(ii) W.P. No.9864/2017 decided on 2nd April, 2019 in the matter of Maharishi Shankarrao Mohite Patil Sahakar Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra and others.

He would submit that so far as Lok Adalats are concerned, in view of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, 'the said Act of 1987), the provisions of Section 16 of the Central Court Fees Act stand incorporated. Therefore, in the case of a suit which is settled before the Lok Adalat, notwithstanding the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the said Act of 1958, 100% refund of court fees will have to be granted.

6. The learned Principal Government Advocate submitted that while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a writ Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the Legislature to amend the legislation in a particular manner. He would, therefore, submit that the relief as prayed for cannot be granted in writ jurisdiction.

7. We have given careful consideration to the submissions made.

8. Section 89 of the Code was brought on the statute book with effect from 1st July, 2002. The objects and reasons of the Act No.46 of 1999 for the introduction of Section 89 are very well known. The object of the Legislature was to ensure that parties settle the dispute out of the Court and therefore, by way of alt