Advocates:
['ANAND P BHANDARI', 'COPY SERVED ON GP', '', 'ALOK SHARMA', 'GP', 'G P', '', '', 'R/ AND ARE FORMAL PARTIES']

{1}

wp491914.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.4919 OF 2014

Sanjeevkumar Harakchand

Kankariya, age: 55 years,

Occ: Agri. & Business,

R/o 77, Bhagawati Colony,

Aurangabad.

Petitioner

Versus

1 Union of India,

through the Ministry of

Law and Justice,

New Delhi.

2 State of Maharashtra,

through the Ministry of

Finance, Mantralaya,

Mumbai-32.

3 Abdul Aasif Abdul Jabbar,

age: 34 years, Occ: Agri. &

Business, R/o Motiwala Nagar,

Behind Dr.Jilla Hospital,

Aurangabad.

4 Abdul Jabbar Haji Mohammad

@ Ghasibhai, age: 59 years,

Occ: Agri. & Business,

R/o Motiwala Nagar, Behind

Dr.Jilla Hospital, Aurangabad.

5 The State of Maharashtra,

through Ministry of Law and

Judiciary, Mantralaya,

Mumbai.

Respondents

Mr.Anand P.Bhandari, advocate for the petitioner

Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader for Respondents No.1, 2 &

5.

Respondents No.3 & 4 – formal parties.

{2}

wp491914.odt

CORAM : R.M.BORDE &

V.K.JADHAV, JJ.

DATE : 01^st October, 2014

JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.):

1

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and

heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.

2

The petitioner is seeking a writ, order or direction to

the State of Maharashtra for refund of entire amount of court fees

to such of the litigants including the petitioner who have presented

proceedings in the Civil Court and those proceedings have been

disposed of in adaptation of any of the modes prescribed under

Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner also

seeks to quash notification dated 08.05.2013, issued by Law &

Judiciary Department, Government of Maharashtra, bearing

No.HCA.2010/C.R.87/D-19, issued under Section 43(2) of the

Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959, on the ground that the

notification is contrary to provisions of Section 16 of the Court

Fees Act, 1870 read with Sections 20 and 21 of the Legal Services

Authority Act, 1987. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that

Respondent No.2 has no authority in law to issue a notification

contrary to the provisions of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870

and prays that all such notifications and rules, run contrary to the

aforesaid provisions, be quashed and set aside.

3

The petitioner entered into an agreement to sell

immovable property situate at Aurangabad with Respondents No.3

& 4. Since the agreement to sell was not specifically performed,

{3}

wp491914.odt

petitioner presented Special Civil Suit No.274 of 2013 in the Court

of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, praying for grant of

relief of specific performance of contract. Respondents No.3 & 4

resisted the claim by filing written statement. Learned 5^th Joint

Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, before whom suit was

pending, considering nature of the suit, directed the parties to

adopt a mode for alternate dispute resolution prescribed under

Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure i.e. mediation. On

reference to mediator, the parties, after due deliberations and with

the aid of the mediator, resolved their dispute amicably and terms

of settlement were presented to the Court. The mediator also

submitted his report informing that the dispute is amicably settled

between the parties. On 07.04.2014, terms of compromise were

presented to the Court and ultimately the trial Court was pleased

to dispose of the suit and passed decree in terms of the

compromise. The petitioner requested for refund of total court fees,

however, learned 5^th

Joint Civil