Litigants Can’t Be Compelled To Deposit Higher Amounts For Instituting Proceedings; ₹125 Cap On Photo-Identification Fee: Allahabad HC
Whereas partially upholding the order of the Single Choose eradicating extreme payment for photograph identification on the Allahabad Excessive Courtroom, the Lucknow Bench held that quantities larger than these prescribed in workplace memorandum dated 22.11.2024 can’t be charged from litigants to file instances or affidavits within the Excessive Courtroom.
Whereas observing that there was a distinction within the receipts printed on the photograph identification centres at Allahabad and at Lucknow, the bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Shree Prakash Singh noticed,
“Each the Bar Associations being in settlement are directed to re-model the receipts issued in order to be in conformity with the round dated 22.11.2024 on the earliest and ideally inside a interval of 15 days from the date of receipt and circulation of this order by the Registrar Normal of this court docket. We additionally make it clear that no litigant for establishment of the proceedings earlier than this court docket is compelled to deposit any quantity larger than what’s prescribed within the aforesaid workplace memorandum dated 22.11.2024.”
In Could, Justice Pankaj Bhatia had eliminated the price of Rs. 500 which the litigants had been being requested to pay throughout photograph identification at Lucknow and at Allahabad. The quantity was being collected in the direction of Advocates’ welfare funds on the behest of the Bar Associations of the Excessive Courtroom in each cities. Justice Bhatia had held that the quantity was being collected with out sanction of any regulation.
The Courtroom had additional held that the record of 272 defects which was utilized by the Registry to level out defects within the affidavits filed earlier than the Excessive Courtroom was not prescribed within the Excessive Courtroom Guidelines. It directed the Registry to not report defects within the affidavits sworn by Notary Public.
Excessive Courtroom Bar Affiliation Allahabad (HCBA) was not a celebration to the writ petition, nevertheless, it approached the Lucknow Bench in Particular Attraction by its Elders Committee on grounds that it was not heard earlier than passing of the order. The division bench in Particular Attraction heard HCBA and granted them depart to enchantment.
The Courtroom noticed that vide workplace memorandum dated 22.11.2024, the Excessive Courtroom had mounted Rs. 125 because the cost per photograph identification.
“The requirement of the passport dimension {photograph} along with the identification quantity was permitted to be generated by the respective Bar Associations for which, separate charges had been mounted occasionally. Within the newest workplace memorandum issued on 22.11.2024, the charges mounted for such a function is Rs.125/- solely per identification quantity, which is permitted to be charged by the respective Bar Associations of the Excessive Courtroom at Allahabad and Oudh Bar Affiliation for Lucknow Bench, Lucknow.”
Noting that there was no dispute concerning implementation of the workplace memorandum, the Courtroom noticed that the counsel for HCBA had conceded that the deposit in the direction of welfare scheme for advocates was not obligatory on the litigants and didn’t have an effect on the submitting ofd affidavits.
Upon perusal of the photograph identification receipts generated at Allahabad and Lucknow, the bench noticed
“The Oudh Bar Affiliation within the receipts issued merely generates the receipt numbers and doesn’t point out the quantity of Rs.125/- on the photographed receipts,whereas, the receipts issued at Allahabad, bear a single receipt quantity each for issuance of a passport dimension {photograph} along with the identification quantity and the identical receipt quantity is issued for charging a further quantity of Rs.475/- in opposition to ‘Adhivakta Nidhi’.”
The Courtroom held that the fees in the direction of Advocates’ welfare funds can’t be part of the photograph identification receipts. The Courtroom noticed that the Bar Affiliation had agreed to transform the receipts inside 15 days.
An objection was raised by the counsel for Excessive Courtroom concerning the route to not mark defects in affidavits sworn by Notary Public.
“From perusal of provisions of Chapter II, Rule 1, Sub. Rule (ii) of the Excessive Courtroom Guidelines, it’s amply clear that the registry is empowered to mark the defects for which the chance to rectify the defect is granted to the respective counsel. To this extent, such a route doesn’t stand in consonance with the related rule and requires modification. The submission has drive,” noticed the Courtroom.
Modifying the order of Single Choose, the Courtroom allowed the Registry to behave in accordance with guidelines. Accordingly, the enchantment was disposed of.