Judgment :- 1. The petitioners, four in number, are the widow and children of one Shri Punnoose who was assessed to tax under the Kerala Plantation Tax Act, 1971. After the death of Punnoose the demand was issued in the name of the petitioners, who are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased. For the common petition the petitioners paid a court fee of Rs. 25/- only. The Taxing Officer raised objection that each of the petitioners has to pay a court fee of Rs. 25/- and that the court fee already paid is deficient. According to the petitioners, since there is only one petition the court fee legally payable is only Rs. 25/-, as stipulated by the relevant Articles of the Court Fees Act. 2. The short question that falls for decision is whether sufficient court fee has been paid. Notice was issued to the Government Pleader. The Taxing Officer as well as the learned. Government Pleader relied on R.147-A of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala. The relevant rule reads as follows: '147-A. 'More persons than one may join in one writ petition as petitioners in whom any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative, where, if such persons present separate writ petitions, any common question of law or fact would arise provided that such person joining in such writ petition shall pay the court fee payable under Art.11(r) of Schedule 11 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, as if each of them had filed a separate writ petition'. 3. If R.147-A is applicable to the petition on hand it is fairly conceded by the petitioners that they have to pay, as court fee, an aggregate amount of Rs. 100/-. But, according to the petitioners, R.147-A itself is invalid. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the High Court cannot levy any fees in excess of the court fee payable under the Court Fees Act. The fallacy in that contention is that, by R.147-A, the High Court is levying a court fee, which is not leviable under the relevant Article of the Court Fees Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the High Court cannot levy any fees in excess of the court fee payable under the Court Fees Act. The fallacy in that contention is that, by R.147-A, the High Court is levying a court fee, which is not leviable under the relevant Article of the Court Fees Act. From the plain wording of R.147-A it is clear, that the main purpose of the Rule is to enable litigants having a common grievance to be redressed to join together in a single petition, provided they pay court fee as if they were filing independent petitions. The object of R.147-A is, thus, to regulate the procedure in the matter of filing an Original Petition and not to levy any court fee outside the ambit of the Court Fees Act. The rules were promulgated on the basis of Art.225 of the Constitution and S.122 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908. The authority of the High Court to frame rules for regulating the procedure regarding Original Petition was never disputed before me. Consequently, since R.147-A is only a rule regulating a procedure and not levying any new court fee, the rule is perfectly valid and the challenge made by the petitioners is not sustainable in law. In the instant case, it shall not be forgotten, that the rights of each of the petitioners are distinct and independent though their grievance is common. The Taxing Officer was, therefore, right in pointing out, that court fee is payable by each of the petitioners even though they have joined together and filed a single petition In the result, I hold that the petitioners are liable to pay an additional court fee of Rs. 75/-, and, they may pay the deficit court fee within a week from this date.