The petitioner was the plaintiff in O.S.Nos.212/2002 and 214/2002 pending before the Sub Court, Palakkad. One Jitheshdas was the defendant in both the suits. When the suits came up for trial both the suits were referred to Lok Adalat organized by the District Legal Services authority, Palakkad. The matter was settled and awards were passed. Both the suits were dismissed without costs. The Lok Adalat ordered refund of full court fee paid by both parties in the plaint as well as on counter claim in both the suits as contemplated under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act (for short ‘the Act’) Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act reads as follows:

“21 Award of Lok Adalat- (1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, an order of any other court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of Section 20, the court-fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870).

(2) Every award made by a Lok-Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award.”

2. In pursuance to the award the learned Sub Judge issued two refund certificates to the plaintiff stating that he is entitled to get full court fee from the District Collector, Palakkad as the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat on 11.12.2004. The petitioner produced those two certificates before the District Collector, Palakkad on 2.12.2005 for getting the refund of court fee paid. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of his repeated requests the District Collector is not refunding the court fee paid.

3. The District Collector has filed a statement admitting the fact that the petitioner had produced two certificates issued by the learned Sub Judge, Palakkad certifying that the plaintiff is entitled to get refund of full court fee. It was averred that on getting the request from the petitioner a bill was prepared and presented before the District Treasury, Palakkad for the refund of court fee. It was averred that the bill presented by the Revenue Divisional Officer was objected by the District Treasury Officer, Palakkad stating that the payment will be effected only on production of the cancelled court fee stamp papers. It was averred that because of the objection raised by the District Treasury Officer, Palakkad the court fee could not be refunded so far. It was also averred that the Collector requested the learned Sub Judge, Palakkad to take steps to enable him to produce the cancelled court fee stamp papers in the two before the District Treasury. Palakkad and the learned Sub Judge, Palakkad had informed that since the cancelled court fee stamp papers have become part of the court records, the same could not be handed over to the District Collector to be produced before the District Treasury. It was also averred that no specific direction was issued by the Government Treasury. It was also averred that no specific direction was issued by the Government regarding the refund of court fee in cases which are settled before the Lok Adalat and a clarification has been sought for from the Government. The district Treasury Officer, Palakkad was also directed to make alternative suggestions. According to the District Collector there is no willful default or laches on his part. It was also averred that similar requests were received from the defendant in the abovesaid suits and those requests were also processed and bills were prepared and presented before the District Treasury Officer. Those bills were also objected stating that the payment will be effected only on production of the cancelled court fee stamp papers. It was stated that in the absence of any specific direction from the Government and in view of the stand taken by the District Treasury Officer, the amount could not be refun