Court fees remitted for petitions are non-refundable when an adjudicatory process has taken place.

JUDGMENT

Harisankar V. Menon, J The 2nd respondent in W.P(C) No.17728 of 2020 has instituted this intra-court appeal seeking to challenge the judgment dated 03.08.2022, directing it to refund an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- paid by the writ petitioner when it instituted an original petition before it.

2. The 1st respondent herein is stated to be an association of persons. The 2^nd respondent herein (the 1^st respondent in the writ petition) had cut down various trees standing in its property for the purpose of drawing a 400 kV electric line. It is also pointed out by the 1^st respondent herein that the 2^nd respondent had also erected towers for the purpose of line drawing in the property. Complaining that no compensation was provided for the afore activities, the 1^st respondent originally approached the District Court, Kalpetta, seeking enhanced compensation. Later, the petitions filed were withdrawn as not pressed, and the 1^st respondent approached the appellant herein (the 2^nd respondent in the writ petition) seeking compensation of Rs.1,25,00,000/-. The original petition was also accompanied by a fee of Rs.1,25,000/-, being 1% of the claim amount. The appellant herein, by Ext.P13 order dated 13.03.2020, held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition instituted as above, thereby dismissing the same. Seeking to challenge the order (Ext.P8) passed by the District Court, Wayanad, in the light of rejection of the complaint by the appellant herein, the 1^st respondent herein instituted W.P(C)No.17728 of 2020. The 1^st respondent also sought for a direction to the appellant herein to refund the fee of Rs.1,25,000/- deposited as noticed earlier, in view of the dismissal of the petition by Ext.P13 order.

3. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment found that since the petition was rejected “without any adjudication”, it was incumbent on the part of the appellant herein not to have even accepted the original petition and therefore, directed refund of Rs.1,25,000/- paid by the writ petitioner.

4. It is seeking to challenge the afore judgment of the learned Single Judge that the appellant has filed this intra-

court appeal.

5. The short issue arising for consideration is as regards the entitlement of the writ petitioner for refund of Rs.1,25,000/- remitted as above.

6. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent herein - the writ petitioner, had filed Ext.P10 original petition before the appellant herein seeking compensation. It is with reference to the notification at Ext.P11 that the petition submitted as above was required to be accompanied by a fee of 1% of the claim amount. It is under the provisions of Regulation 64 of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2003 (for short, the ‘Regulations’), that the fee to be remitted while filing a complaint before the appellant herein is prescribed. The said Regulation reads as under: -

“64. Fees on applications or petitions: (1) Every petition, application or complaint made to the Commission shall be made by payment of the appropriate fees prescribed in the schedule of fees as per Annex II to these Regulations. Provided that the petition/application shall be accompanied by a fee of Rs.10,000/- only and the balance fee payable, if any, shall be paid within two weeks of the admission of the petition/application.”

A reading of the afore Regulation would show that every petition/ application/complaint made to the Commission “shall be” accompanied by a fee prescribed as per Annexure II to the Regulations. It is the afore Regulation which stood amended by Ext.P11 notification, making it mandatory for the complaint to be accompanied with 1% of the cla