RamKumar, J.

1. This appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 was disposed of by a Division Bench on 25-3-2010 as “closed” consequent on the matter having been settled before the Lok Adalat organized by the High Court Legal Services Committee on 4-3-2010. But then the Registry raised an objection that the appellant had paid only 1/3 of the court fee at the time of filing the appeal and the balance court fee was not paid. Thereupon the case was posted for hearing on the above question regarding the balance court fee payable.

2. We heard Advocate Sri. P.C. Chacko, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Advocates M/s. Jikku Jacob and Roy Thomas, the learned Government Pleaders who represented the State.

3. The above appeal was filed on 19-5-1998 remitting 1/3 court fee of Rs.1215/-. The total court fee payable on the memorandum of appeal was Rs.3,640/-. The balance court fee payable was Rs.2425/-. The balance court fee payable was Rs.2425/-. It was said deficit court fee that the Registry raised the above objection.

4. After the filing of the appeal, the Division Bench before which the appeal was pending referred the matter to the Lok Adalat on 13-1-2010 evidently under clause (ii) of Section 20(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (“the L.S.A. Act” for short) to explore the possibilities of a settlement. On 4-3-2010 the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat. Consequently on 25-3-2010 when the settlement was reported to the Division Bench, the appeal was closed noting the factum of settlement before the Lok Adalat and directing refund of half the court fee to the appellant. The Division Bench was presumably following Section 69 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (“the Kerala Court Fees Act” for short) as per which when a suit or appeal is compromised, the plaintiff or the appellant, as the case may be, is entitled to refund of one half of the court fee. But in this case, since the appellant had paid only 1/3rd court fee at the time of filing the appeal, the question of refund of one half of the court fee did not really arise.

5. The learned Government Pleaders who defended the State made the following submissions before us:-

Even when the suit or appeal is compromised at a time when the suit or appeal is pending before the Civil Court, by virtue of the proviso to Sec.69 of the Kerala Court Fees no refund can be ordered if 1/3rd of the court fee payable on the memorandum of appeal as required by Sec.52 of the said Act had already been paid by the appellant. Hence, merely because the matter has been settled before the Lok Adalat, the 1/10th court fee already paid cannot be refunded. The position would be different if the entire amount of court fee had been paid at the time of filing the appeal.

6. After hearing both sides we are of the view that the appellant is not liable to pay the balance court fee and he is also entitled to refund of the 1/3 court fee already paid.

7. We will first examine the provisions of law which govern the matter. The L.S.A. Act was enacted in the year 1987 to give effect to the States’ obligation to provide free legal aid which is one of the directive principles of State policy enshrined in Article 39 A of the Constitution of India. The said Article reads as follows:

“39 A – Equal justice and free legal aid:- The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on the basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.”

Thus, the L.S.A. Act saddles upon the State the obligation to provide free legal aid and legal services to the deserving sections of the society. The L.S.A. Act which was enacted and published in the gazette of India on 12-10-1987 was, however, brought into force as such (excl