The Bombay High Court has issued a binding directive to state authorities to process court fee refunds within four weeks, establishing that prolonged delays in refunding fees constitute a violation of the fundamental right to access justice. This order, issued in a withdrawn testamentary petition, sets a new procedural standard for administrative compliance across Maharashtra’s revenue and finance departments.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Asheta Arunan Menon, filed Testamentary Petition No.364 of 2024 seeking probate of a will. Before any substantive hearing, the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition. The Court granted leave for withdrawal, triggering the statutory right to refund of court fees paid under the Court Fees Act, 1870.
Procedural History
- Petition filed: January 2024 under Testamentary Jurisdiction
- Withdrawal sought: January 30, 2026, via praecipe
- Court granted withdrawal: January 30, 2026
- Refund not yet processed: As of judgment date, no refund had been received despite prior orders in similar cases
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought not only withdrawal of the petition but also an enforceable direction to the Collector of Stamps and Pay and Accounts Department to ensure timely refund of court fees, citing systemic delays that have left litigants without recourse for over a year in multiple cases.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether prolonged delay in refunding court fees, despite a clear court order, violates the right to access justice under Article 21 of the Constitution, and whether the Court has the authority to impose binding timelines on administrative departments for compliance.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. Jayesh Rathod, Advocate for the petitioner, argued that the State’s failure to refund court fees within a reasonable time - sometimes exceeding 12 to 18 months - amounts to a denial of effective remedy. He cited K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to emphasize that access to courts is meaningless if the financial cost of litigation cannot be recovered in a timely manner. He further noted that such delays disproportionately affect litigants in testamentary matters, who are often elderly or grieving.
For the Respondent
The State did not appear or file any written submission. However, the Court noted from its own records that delays stem from bureaucratic inertia, lack of coordination between the Collector of Stamps and the Pay and Accounts Department, and absence of enforceable timelines.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of court fees as a statutory payment made to access judicial remedies. It held that refund of court fees is not a discretionary benefit but a statutory right triggered upon withdrawal or dismissal of a petition. The Court emphasized that delay in refund is not merely administrative inefficiency - it is a constitutional violation.
"The right to access justice is not a hollow promise if the litigant is forced to wait over a year to recover money paid to the State for the very purpose of approaching the Court. Such delay defeats the very purpose of judicial remedy."
The Court rejected the notion that administrative delays are beyond judicial oversight. It invoked its powers under Article 226 to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights, including the right to timely redressal. The Court distinguished between routine delays and systemic failures that erode public trust in the justice system.
It further held that the Collector of Stamps and Pay and Accounts Department are not independent entities but instrumental arms of the State judiciary’s administrative machinery. Their failure to comply with court orders constitutes contempt of court by omission.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s petition was withdrawn. The Court held that refund of court fees must be completed within four weeks of the court’s order, and directed all concerned authorities to comply strictly. Failure to do so will be treated as contempt of court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Refund Timelines Are Now Legally Binding
- Practitioners may now cite this order to demand refunds within 28 days in all civil, testamentary, and family matters
- Any delay beyond four weeks can be challenged via contempt proceedings or a fresh writ petition
- Registry offices must now attach a copy of this order to all refund-granting orders
Administrative Accountability Is Enforceable
- The Collector of Stamps, Pay and Accounts Department, and Registrar General are now under direct judicial supervision
- Litigants need not file separate applications for enforcement - this order applies to all pending and future refund orders
- Government officers may be held personally liable for non-compliance
Withdrawal of Petition Triggers Immediate Obligation
- Withdrawal of a petition, even before hearing, triggers the statutory right to refund
- No further proof of hardship or financial loss is required to claim refund
- The burden shifts to the State to prove compliance, not the litigant to chase it
