Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Syed Javeed vs District Legal Services ... on 22 January, 2013
Equivalent citations: AIR 2013 ANDHRA PRADESH 56, (2013) 126 ALLINDCAS 438 (AP), (2013) 1 ESC 444, 2013 (126) ALLINDCAS 438, (2013) 1 LAB LN 604, (2013) 2 ANDHLD 616
Bench: G. Rohini, C.Praveen Kumar
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.36074 OF 2012 22.01.2013 Syed Javeed District Legal Services Authority,Rangareddy District, rep. by its Chairman, At L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M. Yadaiah Counsel for respondent: Smt. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi (GIST: (HEAD NOTE: ?Cases cited: ORDER:
(Per G. Rohini, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order of the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, R.R. District dated 10.01.2012 holding that the petitioner is not entitled to legal aid under Section 12 (h) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is arbitrary and illegal. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.
Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') deals with the criteria for entitlement of legal services under the Act. Clause (h) of Section 12 with which we are concerned in the present case is reproduced hereunder:
12. Criteria for giving legal services:- Every person who has to file or defend a case shall be entitled to legal services under this Act if that person is-
(a) ... ... ... ... ... ... (b) ... ... ... ... ... ... (c) ... ... ... ... ... ... (d) ... ... ... ... ... ... (e) ... ... ... ... ... ... (f) ... ... ... ... ... ... (g) ... ... ... ... ... ... (h) in receipt of annual income less than rupees nine thousand or such other
higher amount as may be prescribed by the State Government, if the case is before a Court other than the Supreme Court, and less than rupees twelve thousand or such other higher amount as may be prescribed by the Central Government, if the case is before the Supreme Court.
It is also relevant to refer to Section 13 of the Act which provides for satisfaction of an additional requirement to receive legal services under Section 12:
13. Entitlement for legal services:- (1) Persons who satisfy all or any of the criteria specified in Section 12 shall be entitled to receive legal services provided that the concerned Authority is satisfied that such person has a prima facie case to prosecute or to defend.
(2) An affidavit is made by a person as to his income may be regarded as sufficient for making him eligible to the entitlement of legal services under this Act unless the concerned Authority has reason to disbelieve such affidavit. (Emphasis supplied) On a combined reading of Sections 12 & 13, it is clear that for entitlement of legal services not only the satisfaction of the criteria specified in any of the clauses under Section 12 has to be satisfied but it is also necessary to make out a prima facie case to prosecute or to defend, to the satisfaction of the concerned authority.
In the instant case, the writ petitioner who is aged about 22 years filed a suit as an indigent person in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Rangareddy seeking declaration of his title in respect of the suit schedule land admeasuring Ac.782-19 guntas situated in Sy.Nos.1 to 68 of Khanammet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District and recovery of possession apart from various other reliefs. Along with the plaint, he filed a petition under Order 33 Rules 1 & 2 of C.P.C. seeking permission to institute the suit as an indigent person claiming that he is a student and dependant on his father. To substantiate his claim, he filed an income certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal, dated 16.11.2011 certifying that his income is 'Nil'. It appears that circulars have been issued from time to time by the High Court of A.P. directing all the judicial officers to advise the parties who approach the Courts under Order 33 of the Civil Procedure Code to avail the benefit of free legal aid under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and to direct them to approach the District Legal Services Authority/Mandal Legal Services Committee, concerned.
In the light of the said Circulars, the District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy referred the petitioner's application filed under Order 33 Rule 1 of C.P.C. to the District Legal Services Authority and thereupon it was numbered as IRP No.31 of 2011 on the file of the District Legal Services Authority, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar.
On consideration of the same, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority opined that the petitioner had no prima facie case since O.S.No.331 of 1987 filed by his father along with others in respect of the very same property was dismissed and the appeal filed by the petitioner's father is pending on the file of this Court. Accepting the same, the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority passed the impugned order holding that the writ petitioner was not entitled to legal aid under Section 12 (h) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed.
It is urged by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the respondent committed a grave error in rejecting legal aid to the writ petitioner since the question whether a prima facie case is existing or not can be judged only on appreciation of the evidence. While rebutting that it is premature to hold at this stage that no prima facie case is existing, it is further contended that the requirement under Section 13 (1) of the Act that a prima facie case should be made out to the satisfaction of the authority for entitlement for legal services cannot be applied to civil suits.
Having given our thoughtful consideration to the above submissions, we are unable to hold that any such distinction can be drawn for grant of legal aid under the Legal Services Authorities Act.
We may at the outset point out that the expression 'legal service' as defined in Section 2 (1) (c) includes the rendering of any service in the conduct of any case or any other legal proceeding before any Court or other authority or tribunal. Section 12 specifies the persons who are entitled to legal services for filing or defending a case. Sub-section (1) of Section 13 further makes it clear that a person would be entitled to receive legal services if the authority is satisfied that such person has a prima facie case to prosecute or to defend. On a combined reading of the above provisions, it is clear that even if the person seeking legal services falls under any of the categories specified in clauses (a) to (h) of Section 12, the authority concerned should be satisfied as to the prima facie case. In other words the authority shall be satisfied that the state of facts as reflected from the material available on record are sufficient to entitle the person seeking legal services to prosecute or to defend the case. Such satisfaction as to prima facie case is apparently sine qua non so as to entitle a person for legal services either in a civil suit or in any other legal proceeding before any Court or other authority or Tribunal. Coming to the case on hand, the fact that the father of the writ petitioner is one of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.331 of 1987 in respect of the very same property and that the said suit was dismissed is not in dispute. Admittedly the appeal preferred by the father of the writ petitioner and others is pending before this Court. The only plea now sought to be raised by the writ petitioner is that the earlier suit was not filed in a proper manner and therefore he intends to file a comprehensive suit. In our considered opinion, the same cannot be a justifiable ground to file a fresh suit, particularly during the lifetime of the petitioner's father whose appeal against the judgment in O.S.No.331 of 1987 is still pending before this Court.
Therefore, we do not find any justifiable reason to hold that the conclusion of the respondent in the impugned order that no prima facie case was made out to prosecute or defend, is erroneous on any ground what so ever. Consequently, the interference by this Court is not warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________ Justice G. Rohini _________________________ Justice C.Praveen Kumar Date: 22.01.2013