M.VENUGOPAL, J.

The Petitioners have preferred the instant Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in calling for the records of the 3rd Respondent's/DRAT proceedings dated 13.02.2014 relating to Appeal in AIR No.785 of 2011 for non-payment of Court Fees on or before 05.05.2014 and to quash the second and latter part of the said proceedings. Further, they have sought for passing of a consequential order by this Court in directing the 3rd Respondent/Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai to consider their application to pursue the Counter Claim in the Appeal AIR No.785 of 2011 in Sr.No.6908/2010 in O.A.No.98/2007 as 'Indigent Persons' without payment of the Court Fees.

2. The 3rd Respondent/Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, on 13.02.2014, in AIR No.785 of 2011, had, inter alia, observed the following:

“... Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent bank stated that this cannot be entertained without the payment of balance court fee.

It is seen that balance court fee of Rs.29,750/- has to be paid by the appellants. Therefore time is given to the appellants for paying the balance court fee of Rs.29,750/- upto 5.5.2014. In the event the balance court fee is not paid on or before 5.5.2014 this AIR shall stand automatically lodged.”

3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the order dated 01.08.2011 in Counter Claim Sr.No.6908 of 2010 (filed by the Petitioners/Claimants) in O.A.No.98/2007 (Old O.A.No.467/1997 on the file of the DRT-I, Chennai) is an illegal and unreasonable one because of the reason the same is against the weight of evidence and the facts of the case.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners urges before this Court that the Hon'ble Debt Recovery Tribunal - II, Chennai had failed to consider that the Petitioners are 'Indigent Persons' and have no means to pay the Court Fees specified under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 read with Rule 8.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners brings it to the notice of this Court that the 3rd Respondent/DRAT, Chennai in the first part of the impugned proceedings dated 13.02.2014 allowed the I.A.No.173 of 2013 [restoration], which was earlier lodged.

6. The prime submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the 'Appeal Papers' were misplaced on the table of the Advocate on record M.V.L.Narasimhan, who expired and later they were traced out. In fact, the Petitioners are living in penury and due to financial problems, they were unable to get the assistance of a Lawyer to file the Writ Petition challenging the order of the DRAT lodging their Appeal.

7. At this stage, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioners that an interim relief was sought for in the 'Appeal' before the 3rd Respondent/DRAT, Chennai to permit them to pursue their Counter Claim as 'Indigent Persons' and the same was also not taken note of by the Tribunal. As such, the Petitioners were perforced to file a separate I.A. on 18.03.2014 praying to treat them as 'Indigent Persons' which was not numbered and returned for maintainability and the same was resubmitted to the Registry furnishing relevant citations. However, the same was not listed on 05.05.2014 and further, the Petitioners were informed that the Appeal was lodged consequent to the proceedings dated 13.02.2014.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.A.Haja Muniuddin V. Indian Railways, reported in (1992) 4 Supreme Court Cases 736, at page 737, whereby and whereunder, it is observed and held as follows:

“When an indigent person approaches the Tribunal for compensation for the wrong done to him, the Tribunal cannot refuse to exercise jurisdiction merely because he does not have the means to pay the fee. In such a situation we think the ends of justice require that the Tribunal should follow the procedure laid down in Order XXXIII of the Code to do justice for which it came to be