P C SUKHANI Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Notifica?tion No.713/H, dated 28th September, 1964, purporting to exempt the Govern?ment from payment of court-fees has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition as illegal, invalid and ultra vires. The petitioner is one of the princi?pal defendants in a Civil Suit being No.25 of 1977 in the Court of the District Judge of Sikkim at Gangtok, which has been filed by the State of Sikkim as the plain?tiff for the recovery of more than Ru?pees 1 crore and has been filed on the strength of the aforesaid Notification, without any Court-fees. On a plea of de?murrer entered by the petitioner and other defendants, the learned District Judge has rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 (a), Code of Civil Pro?cedure, on the ground that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. Against that order the State has filed an appeal before us being Civil Appeal No.3 of 1979 and that again, without Court-fees, relying on the exemption granted in favour of the State by the impugned Notification.

(2.) In the said Civil Appeal No.3 of 1979 before this Court the petitioner along with the other respondents has urged inter alia that the said appeal is also not maintainable without payment of Court-fees. Apart from the said Civil Suit No.25 of 1977, the plaint whereof has been rejected as aforesaid and the said Civil Appeal No.3 of 1979 against that order of rejection, the petitioner does not appear to be in any way person?ally affected or aggrieved by the impugn?ed Notification and since the question as to the maintainability of the said appeal without payment of Court-fees on the strength of the impugned Notification, and, as such, the legality and vires of the aforesaid Notification will have to be determined in the said Civil Appeal, we asked the learned counsel for the peti?tioner as to what justification can there be in allowing the petitioner to agitate in this separate Writ Petition the very same question which he along with other re?spondents has raised in the Civil Appeal and which will have to be fully and finally decided therein since save in that appeal and the suit giving rise thereto, the petitioner cannot be said to have any personal interest in the deci?sion of the question involved. Is the petitioner, apart from the Civil Appeal and the Civil Suit, "a person aggrieved" Vis-a-vis the impugned Notification?

(3.) The expression "person aggrieved", a "hackneyed phrase'' in Writ Jurisdic?tions according to Krishna Iyer, J., in Bar Council v. M.V. Dabholkar, AIR 1975 SC 2092 at p. 2102), is, as pointed out by his Lordship in Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SC 2602 at pages 2608-9) expanding in its amplitude and should not be subjected to a restrictive interpretation. As pointed out by his Lordship, the nexus between the lis and the litigant "need not necessarily be per?sonal, although it has to be more than a wayfarer's allergy to an unpalatable epi?sode."