The main legal point established in the judgment is that legal aid service, including exemption from court fee, must be strictly assessed and can be reviewed at any time, especially if obtained through fraud or misrepresentation.

ORDER :

P.NAVEEN RAO, J.

Petitioners herein instituted O.S.Nos.72, 73, 74, 75 and 76 of 2009 in the Court of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Medak at Sanga Reddy, praying to declare the plaintiffs as absolute owners of suit schedule properties and to direct the defendants to deliver the possession of the suit schedule properties to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs were represented by the General Power of Attorney Holders. The GPA holders applied to the District Legal Services Authority to exempt them from paying the court fee. The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Medak at Sanga Reddy issued certificates of exemption on 24.09.2009. The certificates were presented before the Court below for exemption from payment of court fee. Sixteenth plaintiff died. Syed Farhatullah Sohail, Syed Akbar Zamani @ Farzana Khan and Syed Shafakahullah Khaleel were impleaded as legal heirs of the deceased 16th plaintiff as per the orders of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy. Aggrieved thereby, revision petitions were preferred. This Court directed those persons to be impleaded in the array as defendants instead of 16th plaintiff. Accordingly, they were added as defendants. As defendants they filed written statement in all the five suits. These defendants filed application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that by playing fraud and misrepresentation plaintiffs obtained exemption certificates. The civil Court dismissed the said application, granting them liberty to go in appeal before the Executive Chairman or the Chairman of the Legal Services institution if they are aggrieved by the certificate issued by the Member Secretary. Taking clue from the said observation of the lower Court, the said defendants preferred appeals to the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority. By common order dated 05.03.2022 the appeals preferred by the defendants were allowed and court fee exemption certificates issued on 24.09.2009 were cancelled and direction was issued to the plaintiffs to pay the requisite court fee. Challenging the said decision, this writ petition is filed.

2. We have heard the learned counsel Sri B.Venkateshwarlu for petitioners, and learned standing counsel Sri Jukanti Anil Kumar, representing the State Legal Services Authority and the learned counsel Sri Asma Raheem for the party respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the exemption certificates were issued on 24.09.2009 under old Rules. The old Rules not provided for remedy of appeal against exemption certificate issued by the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority. The National Legal Services Authority (Free and Competent Legal Services) Regulations, 2010 (‘2010 Regulations’) were notified in the year 2010 and were operative prospectively from the date of the notification. These Regulations for the first time provided remedy of appeal against granting or refusing to grant exemption from payment of court fee. As regulations are prospective in operation effected from 09.09.2010, the said Regulations cannot be applied to entertain the appeal and decide the appeal. He would therefore submit that the appellate authority has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal and, therefore, void ab initio. He would further submit that even assuming that the appellate authority was competent to decide the appeal under 2010 Regulations, as certificate was issued on 24.09.2009, whereas the appeal was preferred in the year 2021 i.e., after 12 years, the appellate authority erred in entertaining such appeal after long lapse of time and ought to have dismissed the appeal on the sole ground of delay and latches. Even if the provision to prefer appeal does not envisage of limitation the appeal has to be preferred within a reasonable time and 12 years cannot be said as reasonable time to entertain the appeal and decide the validity of certificate issued in