C K JACOB Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can the 'financial difficulty' of the litigant be an adequate reason, for not satisfying the '"Additional Court Fee' prescribed under the relevant provisions of law to entertain the statutory appeal; for availing the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India That too, when the earlier attempt made by the very same petitioner in this regard has already been turned down by this Court declining interference in the Writ Petition, which admittedly has become final on dismissal of the Writ Appeal.

(2.) With regard to the sequence of events, case of the petitioner is that, he was engaged in some petty rubber trade dealing with raw rubber and when the respondents completed the assessment without any regard to the actual facts and figures and the mandatory requirements under the statute, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 38448 of 2003, which led to Ext. P3 judgment. As per Ext. P1, the assessment orders were set aside and the departmental authorities were directed to furnish copies of the relevant proceedings first and then finalise the assessment.

(3.) Pursuant to Ext. P3, provisional assessment was made as borne by Ext. P7 and P8, in respect of which, the petitioner submitted statement of objections, raising many a contention. Allegedly, without properly appreciating the objections raised by the petitioner, the final assessment orders were passed, as borne by Ext.P9 and P10; aggrieved of which, the petitioner preferred statutory appeals before the third respondent; however, without remitting the additional Court fee of 0.5% (towards Kerala Legal Benefit Fund), under which circumstances, the appeals were rejected by the third respondent as per Ext. P12 order. The petitioner preferred second appeal before the second respondent/Tribunal, challenging the course and procedure pursued by the third respondent. The petitioner also filed Exts. P15 and P16 applications for exemption from the requirement to satisfy the additional Court fee. Taking note of the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal observed that there was no provision in the statute to provide such exemption and accordingly, the applications filed in this regard were rejected as per a common order (Ext. P17). As a natural consequence, the appeals were found as defective and were rejected.