Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J.

1. This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or for any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the resolution of the District Legal Aid Committee, Purnea and the communication dated 22.3.1999 (Annexure-4) whereby a certificate has been granted for exemption to respondent no.4 for payment of the court fee in Title Suit No. 68 of 1993.

2. Short fact giving rise to the present application are that respondent no.4 hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 68 of 1993 impleading the petitioner and other persons as defendants seeking decree of permanent injunction from disturbing the plaintiffs possession over the land described in the schedule of the plaint. Further relief sought for by plaintiff was to restore possession of land described in Schedule II of the plaint from which he was forcibly dispossessed by defendant no. 1-petitioner here. Defendant no.1 appeared in the suit and pleaded that the plaintiff shall be liable for payment of ad valorem court fee and unless such fee is paid, the relief sought for by the plaintiff, cannot be adjudicated. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed application for amendment of the plaint which was contested by defendant no.1 and the learned Judge, in session of the matter, by order dated 15.11.1997, partly allowed the amendment petition. While doing so, the learned Judge observed that the suit is for adjudication of right, title and interest with consequential relief for injunction and recovery of possession which cannot proceed unless ad valorem court fee is paid. Accordingly, the learned Judge, directed the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee on the value of the suit property i.e. Rs. 60,000/-. The plaintiff challenged the said order before this court in Civil Revision No. 2031 of 1997 (Bhawa Shankar Biswas vs. Shri Hari Krishna Sah and ors) and by order dated 20th of April, 1998 (Annexure-2) , said revision application was dismissed. Plaintiff thereafter filed application for exemption from payment of the court fee claiming himself to be an indigent person. The plaintiff also filed application before the District Legal Aid Committee for granting him certificate for exemption from payment of the court fee in the suit. The application of the petitioner was considered by the District Legal Aid Committee in its meeting and its Secretary, by communication dated 22.3.1999, made to the Judge in seisin of the trial recommended to exempt the plaintiff from payment of the court fee. It is this communication of the Registrar-cum-Secretary of the District Legal Aid Committee, which has been challenged in the present application.

3. Mrs. Pallavi Mishra appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned communication is completely without jurisdiction as the Committee has no power to exempt the court fee. It is contended that Regulation 20 of the Bihar State Legal Services Authority Regulation, 1998 framed in exercise of the powers conferred under section 29-A of the Legal Services Authority Act specifically bars aid in respect of court fee. She submits that notwithstanding the aforesaid provision, the Committee had granted the certificate for exemption of the court fee. She points out that the certificate has been granted by the Committee constituted under the Legal Services Authority Act and as such, the impugned communication is without any authority.

4. Mr. Nagendra Rai, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent no.4, however, submits that the very assumption of the petitioner that this communication has been issued by the District Legal Services Authority, is unfounded on fact and in fact, it has been issued by the District Legal Aid Committee constituted under the Bihar State Weaker Section Legal Aid Act, 1983 and the rule made thereunder. He contends that the certificate has been granted in the light of the notification issued under section 35 of the C