- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3389 WP No. 100617 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.100617 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI PRAKASH S/O. SHANKRAYYA MATHAPATI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MAIGUR, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 301. …PETITIONER (BY SRI K. S. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 101. 2. THE SHIRESTEDAR, I ADDDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BAGALKOT SITTING AT JAMKHANDI, JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.01.2025 (VIDE ANNEXURE-C) AND RETURN THE COURT FEE OF RS.67,125/- PAID AS MISTAKE VIDE CHALLAN REFERENCE NO.CRO 125 007000105928, DATED 09.01.2025 (VIDE ANNEXURE A), TO SERVE ENDS OF JUSTICE. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3389 WP No. 100617 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “A. Issue writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent no.2 to consider the representation dated 17.01.2025 (vide Annexure-C) and return the court fee of rs.67,125/- paid as mistake vide Challan Reference No.CRO 125 007000105928, dated 09.01.2025 (vide Annexure A), to serve ends of justice. B. Any other and further relief as this honorable court deems fi and just in the ends of justice.” 2. The petitioner on 09.01.2025 paid Court Fee of Rs.67,125/- along with the appeal memo, but the appeal itself was not filed owing to the fact that the Court had no jurisdiction. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation for return of the Court fee to be presented before the appropriate Court, which the concerned Court had then directed. On 17.01.2025 the representation submitted by the petitioner comes to be rejected as there - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3389 WP No. 100617 of 2025 was no provision for return of the Court fee. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition. 3. Learned AGA on verification of records would submit since the appeal itself was not taken up even once as the Court had no jurisdiction, the return of Court fee is a remedy available under Section 67 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. 4. In the light of the said submission, mandamus issues to the respondents to return the Court fee to the petitioner, without brooking any further delay. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54