The court affirmed the statutory enrollment fee limit set by the Advocates Act, ordering the refund of excess fees collected.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners are all advocates who are members of the Bar Council of Kerala. The issue raised in this writ petition relates to the enrollment fee demanded and collected by the 1^st respondent.

2. Petitioners alleged that an exorbitant amount of Rs.5,000/- was collected by the Bar Council of Kerala in excess of the permitted fee of Rs.750/- as contemplated under Section 24 (1)(f) of the Advocates Act towards enrollment of Advocates. According to the petitioners, the excess payment of Rs.5,000/- per person is to be refunded since inGaurav Kumar v. Union of India [(2025) 1 SCC 641], it was declared that the 1^st respondent could not collect any fee in excess of Rs.750/- prescribed by law.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1^st respondent wherein, in paragraph No.5, it is affirmed that, in the light of the judgment (wrongly mentioned as Ext.P3 instead of Ext.P2), if the petitioners approach the 1^st respondent, the fee in excess of the statutory enrollment fee and stamp duty amounting to Rs.750/-

would be refunded.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent, as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

5. The issue raised in this writ petition lies in a narrow compass and relates to refund of the excess fee collected by the 1st respondent in connection with enrollment of the petitioners and since in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit the said respondent has agreed to refund the excess amount to the petitioners, I am of the view that further consideration of the contentions raised in this writ petition becomes only an academic nature.

6. Having regard to the admitted averments in the counter affidavit of the 1^st respondent, there will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to return the excess fee collected from the petitioners immediately, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to mention that in the light of the declaration of law by the Supreme Court in Gaurav Kumar's case cited supra, the 1^st respondent cannot collect anything more towards enrollment fee other than the statutorily fixed fee and stamp duty amounting to Rs.750/-.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-