Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Revn. No. 195 of 1986

Judges

T.N Singh, J.

Acts

SECTION 35 COURT FEES ACT 1870
provisions of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution,

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff applied in the trial Court for exemption from payment of court-fee. The trial Court granted the exemption, relying on two State Government notifications (referred to as Notification 'A' and Notification 'B'). Notification 'A' remitted specified court-fees under the Court-fees Act, 1870 for certain categories of persons whose annual income immediately preceding the presentation of the plaint did not exceed Rs. 6,000. Notification 'B', issued under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution, declared classes of citizens to be "socially and educationally backward," and its Schedule included an entry naming "Mali (Saini) Marar" (entry No. 33(b)). The trial Court accepted the plaintiff's claim that he belonged to the Mali caste and thus was within the "weaker sections of the society" under Notification 'A', and accepted the plaintiff's evidence as to his low income (a pension of Rs. 200 per month).

The defendant (the revisionist) filed this revision challenging the trial Court's interpretation and application of Notification 'A'—primarily contending that the trial Court wrongly equated "weaker sections of the society" with the backward classes listed in Notification 'B' and that the exemption granted was ultra vires and without jurisdiction. The revisional Court heard argument and delivered the impugned judgment under review in this opinion.

Legal Issues Presented

What meaning should be attributed to the phrase "weaker sections of the society" in clause (viii) of Notification 'A'?
Whether the trial Court acted without jurisdiction in granting exemption from court-fee to the plaintiff on the ground that he belonged to a backward class covered by entry No. 33(b) of Notification 'B'.

Arguments of the Parties

Revisionist / Defendant (represented by Shri A.K. Shrivastava)

Contended that the trial Court's interpretation of "weaker sections of the society" was ultra vires the Notifications and the Constitution.
Argued that the exemption granted to the plaintiff was illegal and without jurisdiction.
Challenged the trial Court's finding on the plaintiff's annual income and urged that that finding be upset in revision.

Plaintiff / Respondent

Claimed entitlement to exemption under Notification 'A' by virtue of belonging to the Mali caste, which is listed in Notification 'B' as a socially and educationally backward class (entry No. 33(b)).
Adduced evidence as to his income (stated to be a pension of Rs. 200 per month), which the trial Court accepted as establishing that his annual income did not exceed the prescribed limit in Notification 'A'.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
K.C. Vasant Kumar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1985 SC 1495	The Supreme Court indicated tests to identify "other backward classes": (a) the classes must be comparable to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in terms of backwardness; (b) economic backwardness ("means test") should be considered in the context of prevailing economic conditions; and the policy of reservation should be subject to periodic review (the decision mentions review every five years and a suggested 15-year period for upliftment in some contexts).	The revisional Court relied on the principles in K.C. Vasant Kumar to support its reading that "weaker sections of the society" can include backward classes identified under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) (as in Notification 'B'), subject to an economic means test (the income threshold in Notification 'A'). The Court cited the decision to endorse periodic review of classifications and the combined consideration of social and economic backwardness.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court undertook a stepwise analysis grounded in the text of Notification 'A', constitutional provisions, and the object of the Notification:

Qualification in Notification 'A': The Court first emphasized that Notification 'A' imposes an express economic qualification — the claimant must satisfy the Court that his annual income from all sources does not exceed Rs. 6,000. This means the benefit is not automatic for a class label alone; economic status is a primary gating condition.
Absence of a strict definition: The Court noted that the phrase "weaker sections of the society" is not expressly defined in either Notification or in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, although Notification 'A' does define "Member of Scheduled Castes" and "Member of Scheduled Tribes" with reference to Articles 341 and 342.
Width of the expression and ejusdem generis support: The Court accepted that the expression has a wide import and should not be read as limited to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minors or women. It regarded clause (viii) as a residuary clause intended to cover classes suffering social disability in other ways (artisan, unskilled labourer, landless labourer, etc.). The maxim noscitur a sociis was applied to construe the clause in light of adjacent listed categories.
Purpose-driven interpretation: The Court repeatedly invoked the object of the Notification — to encourage persons suffering social, economic and socio-economic oppression to seek legal redress by removing the financial barrier of court-fees — and tied this to the State's constitutional responsibility to establish a just social order.
Nexus with Articles 15(4) and 16(4) and Notification 'B': The Court reasoned that although Notification 'A' does not use the phrase "backward classes", Article 15(4) contemplates "socially and educationally backward classes." It held that the nexus between the classes in Notification 'A' described as "weaker sections of the society" and those identified in Notification 'B' (issued under Articles 15(4) and 16(4)) is clear and that Notification 'A' mandates an equation analogous to how it uses Articles 341 and 342 to define Scheduled Castes and Tribes.
Means test as safeguard against misuse: The Court observed that Notification 'A' contains its own "means test" (the Rs. 6,000 income ceiling) and thereby guards against indiscriminate extension of benefits to socially backward classes who are not economically deprived. It acknowledged the revisionist's point that not every member of a socially backward class will be economically deprived, but stated that Notification 'A' correctly contemplates both social and economic criteria.
Reliance on K.C. Vasant Kumar: The Court invoked K.C. Vasant Kumar to support the proposition that "other backward classes" should be identified using twin tests (comparability with SC/ST in backwardness and economic means test) and that State classifications should be reviewed periodically (the opinion specifically notes a suggested periodicity of five years for review).
Evaluation of trial Court's factual findings: On the challenge to the trial Court's factual finding regarding the plaintiff's annual income, the revisional Court refused to upset the trial Court's acceptance of the plaintiff's evidence (pension of Rs. 200 per month). The revisional Court noted that the trial Judge had preferred the plaintiff's evidence over the revisionist/defendant's evidence and that it was beyond the revisional Court's province to reappraise or displace that credibility finding.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The revision is dismissed and the trial Court's grant of exemption from payment of court-fee to the plaintiff stands. The Court made no order as to costs.

Implications:

Direct effect on parties: The trial Court's decision to grant the plaintiff exemption under Notifications 'A' and 'B' is upheld; the plaintiff retains the exemption and the revisionist's challenge fails.
Interpretation affirmed: The Court interpreted "weaker sections of the society" in Notification 'A' to include socially and educationally backward classes identified under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) (as in Notification 'B'), subject to the economic safeguard (the income ceiling in Notification 'A'). This interpretation ties the class-based protection to a means test and to constitutional principles of protective discrimination.
Administrative guidance: The opinion endorses the view (drawn from K.C. Vasant Kumar) that classifications of backward classes should be reviewed periodically (the Court refers to the appropriateness of review every five years) and that economic conditions should inform such reviews.
Precedential note: The Court applied existing principles from K.C. Vasant Kumar rather than creating a novel test; the direct legal consequence is the upholding of the exemption in the present case with a reaffirmation of the combined social-and-economic approach to identifying eligibility under Notification 'A'.

No other precedents or party submissions beyond those summarized were relied on or detailed in the provided opinion.

Show full summary ...

Laxmi Narayan v. Madan Mohan And Another

1. The plaintiff prayed for exemption from payment of court-fee in the trial Court and his prayer was accepted. In doing so, the Court below placed reliance on two Notifications of the State Government, being Notification No.F. 9-1-83-B-XXI, dated 1st April, 1983 (published in Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra (Asadharan), dated 1-4-19831 and No. F 8-5-25-4-84, dated 26th Dec., 1984 (published in M.P. Rajpatra Part I, dated 8-2-1985), hereinafter referred to as Notifications 'A' and 'B' respectively.

2. Because Notification 'A' is of immediate and crucial relevance to the controversy the text thereof deserves to be extracted in extenso, with a portion duly emphasized :

"In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 35 of the Court-fees Act, 1870 (No. 7 of 1870), the Stale Government hereby remits in the whole of the State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court-fees mentioned in Articles 1-A and 2 of the first schedule and Articles 5, 17 and 21 of the second schedule to the said Act payable on plaint by the following categories of persons whose annua1 income immediately preceding the date of presentation of plaint from all sources does not exceed thousand, namely : --

(i) member of Scheduled Tribes;

(ii) member of Scheduled Castes:

(iii) minors:

(iv) women:

(v) artisan;

(vi) unskilled labourer;

(vii) landless labourer:

(viii) person belonging to the weaker sections of society.

Explanation: -- For the purposes of this notification : --

(i) "Member of Scheduled Castes" means a member of any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within caste, race or tribe specified as such with respect to the State of Madhya Pradesh under Article 341 of the Constitution of India:

(ii) "Member of Scheduled Tribes" means a member of any tribe, tribal community or part of or group within a tribe or tribal community specified as such with respect to the State of Madhya Pradesh under Article 342 of the Constitution of India."

3. By Notification 'B', issued in pursuance to the provisions of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution, the State Government has declared the classes of citizens included in the Schedule thereof as "Socially and educationally backward classes." The Schedule contains as many as 82 entries, including entry No. 33 of which clause (b) reads -- "Mali (Saini) Marar". The plaintiff non-petitioner was held entitled to the exemption prayed as he admittedly belonged to the class of citizens who were known as "Mali" by caste and on that ground he was considered by the trial Court us belonging to "weaker sections of the society."

4. The short question fordecision in this, revision, therefore, is what meaning has to be attributed to the term "weaker sections of the society" of clause (viii) of Notification 'A' and whether the trial court acted without jurisdiction in extending to the plaintiff benefit of the said Notification on the ground that the plaintiff was a person belonging to backward class, covered by entry No. 33(b) of Notification 'B'.

5. Shri A.K. Shrivastava, vocal and vociferous as he always is, has very strenuously urged that the trial court's interpretation of the term "weaker sections of the society" is ultra vires the Notifications as also the Constitutional provision and exemption from payment of court-fees grunted to the plaintiff non-petitioner is illegal and without jurisdiction.

6. However, the arguments of the learned counsel have not appealed to me for more than one reason. Firstly, the term "weaker sections of the society" is subject to the general qualification which applies to all classes of all cases covered by the Notification 'A'. Thus, the first condition to be satisfied to avail the benefit of Notification 'A'is that the plaintiff must satisfy the Court that his annual income from all sources did not exceed Rs. 6,000/-. Secondly, the fact is that the term "weaker sections of the society" is not defined anywhere in the two Notifications as also in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution though in Notification 'A' itself, the Explanation defines the terms "Member of Scheduled Custe" and "Member of Scheduled Tribe" with reference to Articles 341 and 342 respectively of the Constitution. Indeed, the position that the expression in question has a very wide import is even conceded by Shri Shrivastava. It is not limited evidently to members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, or even to other citizens who suffer disability of other types such as of age and sex, and indeed, of inferior socio-economic status as is clearly projected in the application of the Notification to artisan, unskilled labourers and landless labourers who may not be of. Scheduled Tribes or Scheduled Castes or minors or women, but may belong to any section of the society.

7. I have no doubt that Clause (viii) of Notification 'A' is meant to be read as a residuary clause to cover eases of such clases of citizens who suffer social disability in other ways making it obligatory for the Slate to take care of their weaker position in society, to protect them against exploitation. The maxim. Noscitur a sociis. lends support to such an interpretation. Indeed, what is the object of the Notification is also to be kept in view in interpreting the expression "weaker sections of the society." By granting exemption from payment of court-fees persons suffering social, economic und socio-economic oppression as a member of a class of citizens are encouraged individually to take recourse to law to enforce their legal rights and fight exploitation. Let it not be forgotten that to adopt measures for establishment of a just social order is State's constitutional responsibility.

8. True it is that notification 'A' does not, in terms, speak of "backward classes", but An. 15(4) also does not speak of "backward classes as such and rather speaks of "socially and educationally backward classes" in categorical terms. Indeed, though Article 15(4) speaks categorically of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the protective discrimination or rather weightage envisaged thereunder is extended further to persons who suffer in other ways social disability and inequity inasmuch as it speaks also of persons who are "socially and (or) educationally backward" class of citizens. In other words, those persons who suffer, a lower social ranking or social inequity as a class not only being educationally starved but being otherwise prone to exploitation are also sought to be upgraded and protected by constitutional weightage to neutralise the social inequity they have suffered during the colonial period or even before that. It is not necessary to suy further that Articles 15(4) and 1614 merely sing the signature tune of the Constitution, of social justice. Indeed, the Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Vasant Kumar v. State of Karnataka. AIR 19R5 SC 1495, has indicated tests to identify the "other backward classes".

9. A period of another 15 years, it was held by their Lordships, may be reasonably necessary for the upper crust of the oppressed classes to overcome the baneful effects of long periods of social oppression, isolation and humiliation. While it was held that the policy of reservation should be revised every five years or so, twin tests to identify the "other backward classes" were laid down. The classes so specified, it was held, must be comparable to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the matter of their backwardness but their economic backwardness ("means test") should also be considered in the context of prevailing economic conditions. 1 have no hesitation to read the term "weaker sections of the society" to include also citizens of "back ward classes" who are covered by Notification 'B\ issued in pursuance to Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution, because the nexus of classification made in Notification 'A' concerning "weaker sections of the society" to that of classification made in Notification B' concerning "socially and educationally backward classes of citizens" is clear, unimpeachable and indissoluble. Indeed the scheme of Notification 'A' mandates such a course; it indicates the imperative necessity of establishing an equation between the expression "weaker sections of the society" and Articles 15(4) and 16(4) in the same way as the Explanation refers to Articles 341 and 342 to define the terms "Scheduled Castes" and "Scheduled Tribes".

10. I do not see any scope for any misuse of the benefit envisaged under Notification 'A' by citizens covered by Notification 'B' inasmuch as the Notification 'A' clearly envisages itself the "means test" in that who are sought to be benefited are those who are economically backward also and are not only "socially backward" inasmuch as the first condition to be satisfied for application of Notification 'A' is that the claimant must be such a person whose annual income from all sources does not exceed Rs. 6,000/-. True it is as Shri Shrivastava has submitted, even citizen belonging to socially backward classes identified in Notification 'B' may not all be so because they may not be all economically deprived. But the question is, whether the class of citizens presently so specified may have the benefit of Notification 'A'. The answer is simple and clear indeed spelt out in K.C. Vasant Kumar (AIR 1985 SC !495) (supra) that it would be appropriate for the State Government to review the classification of other backward classes every five years in the light of prevailing economic conditions of the society generally and their position in respect thereof.

11. Shri Shrivastava is still not satisfied and he stands up to urge that the trial Court's finding be upset in regard to the annual income of the plaintiff. I must commend the courage of the learned counsel in making such a prayer in revision, knowing it fully well that it is beyond my province to do so. Indeed, what I read in the impugned judgment is that the trial court has categorically taken a considered view of the matter saying that the evidence of the plaintiff was worthy of reliance. The trial court has accepted plaintiff's evidence as respects income which, he deposed, was nothing else than the meagre pension of Rs. 200/- per month.

The learned trial Judge has, in categorical terms, preferred his evidence to the evidence adduced by the revisionist/defendant and has driven hard the nail to seal defendant's opposition to the grant of exception to the plaintiff from payment of court-fees in terms of Notifications 'A' and 'B'.

12. For all the foregoing reasons, this revision must merit instant dismissal, but I make no order as to costs.

Laxmi Narayan v. Madan Mohan And Another

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Revisionist / Defendant (represented by Shri A.K. Shrivastava)

Plaintiff / Respondent

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Laxmi Narayan v. Madan Mohan And Another

Comments