Court upholds additional court fee for statutory appeal; financial difficulty not a valid excuse

The court held that financial difficulty cannot justify avoiding payment of additional court fees for a statutory appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The provisions of Order XLIV and Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure were deemed inapplicable to proceedings before the Tribunal. The court dismissed the petitioner's challenge against the additional court fee requirement, citing previous judgments, and found the attempt to raise the same grounds in a fresh writ petition as an abuse of the court process. The court dismissed the writ petition with costs and directed the registry to recover the costs from the Department of Finance.

---

---

Issues:
Can financial difficulty be a reason to avoid paying additional court fees for a statutory appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaRs. Should provisions under Order XLIV and Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure be applicable to proceedings before the TribunalRs. Is challenging the additional court fee requirement and seeking exemption a valid ground for interference under article 226Rs. Is the petitioner's attempt to raise the same grounds in a fresh writ petition considered an abuse of the court processRs.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in rubber trade, challenged assessment orders and subsequent appeals were rejected for not remitting the additional court fee. The Tribunal rejected exemption applications, leading to defective appeals. The petitioner then filed a writ petition, contending that provisions under Order XLIV and Order XXXIII should apply, citing a Supreme Court decision. The court held that the challenge against the additional court fee requirement was misconceived based on previous judgments. The court also found that the provisions cited by the petitioner were not applicable. A subsequent appeal was dismissed, confirming the earlier judgment. The petitioner filed a fresh writ petition, citing financial difficulty as a reason for not paying the additional court fee, which was considered an abuse of court process. The court dismissed the writ petition with costs.

The court referenced a Division Bench decision regarding the maintainability of a revision petition and clarified that the right to challenge orders in a writ petition was not absolute. The petitioner relied on Supreme Court decisions regarding alternate remedies not being a bar to a writ petition under Article 226. The court reiterated that financial difficulty does not exempt a litigant from paying the additional court fee for statutory appeals and seeking exemption, as no such proposition was established by the Supreme Court or other decisions. The court found the petitioner's attempt to raise the same grounds in a fresh writ petition as an abuse of the court process and dismissed the petition with costs. The court directed the registry to forward the verdict to the Department of Finance for cost recovery.

---