Judgment B.J. Shethna, J.-Mana Ram and other 100 persons filed a joint 58 Civil Writ Petition No. 1451/97 before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging challans dated 13-3-97 (Annexs. 5 to 9) issued by the Tehsildar for the payment of interest at the rate of 18% from the petitioners under Rule 17(8) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of the Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 amended in the year 1992 on the instalment amount, which was earlier stayed by this Court on 9-9-8 8 in Writ Petition No. 2963/8 8 (Annexure 3). 2. On 23-4-97 my learned brother P. P. Naolekar, J. directed the learned Counsel Shri Purohit for the petitioner to pay Court-fee in respect of each petitioner separately (as earlier joint Court-fee was paid for all the petitioners) and the matter was ordered to be listed for admission only after payment of Court-fees for each petitioner. Accordingly, the Court-fee was paid by the learned Counsel for each petitioner. Thereafter, on 2-5-94 Naolekar, J. ordered to issue notice to the respondents to show cause as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and disposed of at the admission stage itself In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents filed reply to the petition and raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of the joint writ petition filed by 102 petitioners. 3. On stay petition also, notice was ordered to be issued and the petitioners were directed to deposit the amount as ordered in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1130/89 within a period of two weeks without interest and the respondents were directed to accept that amount. The deposit of the amount was made subject to the result of the main writ petition. 4. On8-2-99 when this matter came up before me for disposal at the admission stage, learned Counsel Shri Ja for the respondents raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of the joint writ petition filed by 102 petitioners. It was submitted by Mr. Jain on that day that earlier joint petition being writ petition No. 1130/89 filed by the petitioners was dismissed also on the ground that such a joint writ petition was not maintainable (see Annexure 4). In view of this preliminary objection, learned Counsel Shri Acharya for the petitioners sought time till 11 -2-99 and the time was granted. Jain on that day that earlier joint petition being writ petition No. 1130/89 filed by the petitioners was dismissed also on the ground that such a joint writ petition was not maintainable (see Annexure 4). In view of this preliminary objection, learned Counsel Shri Acharya for the petitioners sought time till 11 -2-99 and the time was granted. On 11-2-99, 100 separate petitions were filed by the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 Mana Ram of writ petition No. 1491/97 in view of the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of joint writ petition raised by learned Counsel Shri Jain. However, separate Court-fee stamp on each petition was not affixed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners on the ground that joint Court-fee Stamp of Rs. 25 00/-in all was paid by the petitioners in their joint writ petition No. 149 1/ 97. The separate Court-fee stamp of Rs. 25/-in each petition was not affixed, therefore, the office placed all the above matters under defects. In footnote 2 of each petition, it has been stated that “2. Writ Petition No. 149 1/97 was filed by Mana Ram & Ors, including the petitioner. But the petitioner now stands advised that there may be technical objection in filing joint writ petition. Petitioner, therefore, files this separate writ petition in his own name and prays that the affidavit and the annexures which have already been filed with the earlier Writ Petition No. 1491/97 may kindly be dispensed with. Court-fee has also been paid by the petitioner as per order dated 23-4-97 passed in the said writ petition and, therefore, tiling of the Court-fee may also be dispensed with.” 5. All other defects could be waived but as required under the Rules, the Court-fees stamp was required to be affixed on each petition, therefore, learned Counsel Shri Purohit for the petitioner stated that he will affix the Court-fee of Rs. 25/-in each petition during the course of the day and accordingly he affixed the Court-fee Stamp of Rs. 25/-in each petition. Therefore, the office has now given the aforesaid regular numbers to the separate writ petitions filed by the petitioners. 6. In view of the above, all these petitions are disposed of by this common Judgment . 7. 25/-in each petition during the course of the day and accordingly he affixed the Court-fee Stamp of Rs. 25/-in each petition. Therefore, the office has now given the aforesaid regular numbers to the separate writ petitions filed by the petitioners. 6. In view of the above, all these petitions are disposed of by this common Judgment . 7. Learned Counsel Shri Jain for the respondents vehemently submitted that the earlier joint Writ Petition No. 1491/97 filed by the petitioners was required to be dismissed by this Court only on the ground of its maintainability, because according to him such joint petition was not maintainable. It was also submitted by Mr. Jain that earlier this Court (B. J. Shethna, J.) dismissed such ajoint Writ Petition No. 1130/89 on 14-1-97 on the ground that such ajoint petition was not maintainable, therefore, he submitted that though the earlier petition was dismissed by this Court the petitioners have once again filed joint petition which is required to be rejected as not maintainable. He also submitted that merely because this Court (P. P. Naolekar, J.) earlier ordered in this writ petition on 23-4-97 and directed the learned Counsel for the petitioner to pay Court-fees in respect of each petitioner separately and each petitioner paying separate Court-fee, it would not save such joint writ petition. He submitted that when joint petition was filed, it was required that the Court-fee stamp for each petitioner should have been paid, therefore, Hon’ble P. P. Naolekar, J. directed the learned Counsel for the petitioners to pay separate Court-fees for each petitioner, but that would not help the petitioners as still his preliminary objection survives that such a joint petition would not be maintainable. He further submitted that if this Court allows the petitioners to file such separate petitions at such a belated stage then it would amount to giving premium to the dishonesty. He further submitted that those separate petitions have been filed very late, therefore, on the ground of delay and laches they are required to be dismissed. 8. Mr. Jain then submitted that on merits also all these petitions were required to be dismissed in view of the Judgment of this Court (P. P. Naolckar, J.) delivered on 14-1-97 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 344 1/96 Rana Ram v. State of Rajasthan. 8. Mr. Jain then submitted that on merits also all these petitions were required to be dismissed in view of the Judgment of this Court (P. P. Naolckar, J.) delivered on 14-1-97 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 344 1/96 Rana Ram v. State of Rajasthan. He further submitted that proviso to Rule 13-A(a) of the Rules was added only in 1992 which reads as under :--“Provided that if any allottee falls to deposit the instalment on due date, as prescribed in the allotment order, the allotment shall be deemed cancelled without any notice.” 9. However, learned Counsel Shri Purohit submitted that the said proviso would not be applicable in the case of the present petitioners. He submitted that it would be applicable only in those cases wherein allotment was cancelled where the allottees apply for the restoration, their only instalments with interest are to be paid. 10. Apart from the fact that there is a lot of force in the preliminary objection raised by learned Counsel Shri Jain regarding the maintainability of the joint Writ Petition No. 149 1/97, on merits also the petitioners have no case. Challenge to Clause (iii) of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 13-A of the Rules, 1975 has failed and the validity of the same has been upheld by the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 344 1/96 and the Division Bench has confirmed the order passed by the learned single Judge in DB Civil Special Appeal No. 207/97 and it is held that charging 18% interest on unpaid instalment is valid. 11. Oncethis Court has taken the view and held that the respondents can charge 18% interest on the instalments then the petitioners cannot say no to pay the interest at the rate of 18% on the ground that they had earlier obtained stay from this Court their earlier writ petition. Once the writ petition was dismissed, consequences bound to follow and in absence of any specific order of this Court restraining the respondents from charging 18% interest on instalment amount, the petitioner were bound to pay 18% interest as provided under the law. 12. In view of the above discussions, all these petitions fail and arc dismissed. Interim relief granted earlier in Writ Petition No. 1491/97 stands vacated and the stay petition also stands dismissed.