ALEX A VARGHESE Vs. K S E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money, for permanent injunction and certain incidental reliefs is the appellant. He was awarded a contract by the Kerala State Electricity Board. Alleging breach by him, the Board rescinded the contract by issuing a decision terminating it. Plaintiff challenges that termination and the consequential decision of the KSEB authorities to have the work re-arranged at his risk and costs. He also seeks recovery of money allegedly due to him under that contract.

(2.) Plaintiff paid 1/10th of the court fee due at the time of institution of the suit. After the written statement was filed and issues framed, the court below posted the case for payment of balance court fee. It appears that few adjournments were given for that purpose. Then, the appealing plaintiff sought an order permitting him to continue the suit by suing as an indigent person in terms of Order XXXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that he does not have sufficient means to pay balance court fee. The court below, without stating any reason, "rejected" that application. This is what we find from the certified copy of the impugned order. Since the word "rejected" was used in the impugned order, we called for a report from the court below. The report shows that the application to sue as indigent was dismissed and as a consequence, the plaint was rejected. The report discloses that before the plaintiff sought leave to continue the suit by suing as an indigent, the suit was posted on three or four occasions for payment of balance court fee. But, the rejection of the application for leave to sue as an indigent person is not accompanied by any statement of reason for that decision.

(3.) The whole object of making provisions for permission to sue as indigent is part of the social objectives in terms of the Constitutional goals, in particular, the concept of socialism. This constitutional value is abundantly reflected by the seminal equality principle enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution guaranteeing that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, as also, the guiding beacon in Article 39A, among the Directive Principles of State Policy, that the State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. None is to be deprived of access to the justice delivery system on account of lack of funds to pay court fee. This is well reflected even from the provisions in Order XXXIII, Rule 18 provides that the State may even make provisions as it thinks fit to provide free legal services to those who have been permitted to sue as indigent persons. Rule 10 provides that where the plaintiff succeeds in the suit the court fee which would have been payable by the plaintiff, had he not been permitted to sue as an indigent person, shall be recoverable from any party ordered by the decree to pay it. We take note of these provisions in Order XXXIII itself to note that the law does not contemplate a person being left in the lurch, if he is incapable of suing solely on account of his economically challenged status. This constitutional vision, which lies embedded in the form of beneficial provisions in the statutory rules in hand, has to be given effect to while considering the request made for relief in terms of the provisions of Order XXXIII of the Code.