A.S. Oka, J.

On the earlier date, we had put the parties to the notice that considering the importance of the issue involved, the petitions will be taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. Accordingly we issue Rule. The learned Government Pleader waives service for the first respondent. Considering the nature of controversy, notice to the second and third respondents is dispensed with.

2. The issue which arises for consideration in these three petitions is as under :-

"Whether a litigant who settles a suit before Lok Adalat held under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short "the said Act of 1987) is entitled to 100% refund of Court Fees paid ?"

3. The factual aspect in all these three petitions are more or less same. Therefore, we are referring only to the facts in Writ Petition No.9864 of 2017. The petitioner filed a money suit against the third respondent in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Malshiras, District Solapur. The suit was placed before the Lok Adalat on 9th April, 2016. A compromise was arrived at between the parties before the Lok Adalat and a written compromise was tendered on record before the Lok Adalat. The suit was disposed of in terms of the compromise by the Lok Adalat and an award was made.

4. On 14th July, 2016, an application was made by the petitioner before the learned Trial Judge for refund of the entire amount of Court fees of Rs.3 lakhs paid on the suit. The learned Trial Judge passed an order granting 100% refund in the light of the provisions of Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short "CPC") and Section 21 of the said Act of 1987. Accordingly, a refund was made of the Court Fees of Rs.3 lakhs. On the basis of an objection raised during the inspection of the District Court, the learned Trial Judge issued a notice dated 6th July, 2017 to the petitioner informing the petitioner that though the petitioner was entitled to refund of only 25% of the Court fees, the petitioner was granted full refund. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.2.25 lakhs. The present petition is filed for challenging the said communication / demand issued by the learned Trial Judge to the petitioner.

5. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is based on Section 21 of the said Act of 1987. He submitted that provisions of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (for short "the Central Court Fees Act") regarding the refund of the Court fees stands incorporated in sub-Section (1) of Section 21 of the said Act of 1987 and as the provisions of Central Court Fees Act provide for grant of 100% refund of Court fees in the suits settled before the Lok Adalat, the Trial Court was justified in granting 100% refund. He placed reliance on the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjeevkumar Harakchand Kankariya Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 4919 of 2014, decided on 1st October, 2014) and in particular in paragraph 14. He submitted that it is already held by the Division Bench that Section 21 of the Act of 1987 is a case of legislation by incorporation.

6. The learned Government Pleader relied upon an affidavit of Shri. Rajendra Dattaram Sawant, Legal Advisor-cum-Joint Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. The submission of the learned Government Pleader is that so far as the payment and refund of Court fees in the Civil Courts in Maharashtra is concerned, the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 (for short "the State Court Fees Act") is a complete code by itself. He urged that Section 43 of the State Court Fees Act provides for repayment of Court fees in case of settlement and, therefore, in the facts of the case, the repayment or refund of Court fees will be governed by the Notification dated 8th May, 2013 issued in exercise of powers under sub-Section (2) of Section 43 of the State Court Fees Act. He pointed out that going by the said Notification, in the present case, the petitioner is e