Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1012 (PAT)

Shiv Shankar Pandey v. Union Of India

2002-09-16

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2002
Judgment 1. Petitioners, who are 21 in number, are Village Health Guides in the Primary Health Centre engaged on monthly honorarium of.... Rs. 50/- and in this writ application their prayer is to direct the respondents to regularise their services on the post of Village Health Guides and grant them the scale of Class IV employees. In the writ application they have paid one set of court fee and the Stamp Reporter has found the court fee paid by the petitioners to be insufficient and had directed the petitioners to file 20 more sets of court fee. The petitioners did not file the required sets of court fee and took a plea that as common relief has been sought for, filing of one set of court fee is sufficient. This did not satisfy the Stamp Reporter and accordingly the matter has been placed for consideration before this Court. 2. Mr. Jai Shankar Barnwal appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that all the petitioners are working as Village Level Guides and their prayer is for regularisation of their services and payment of salary in the scale granted to Class IV employees, that is, relief being common, filing of one set of court fee shall be sufficient. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a Division Bench order of this Court in Smt. Krishna Pati Devi and others V/s. The State of Bihar and others [1998 (2) P.L.J.R. 765] and my attention has been drawn to paragraph 4 of the order which reads as follows : "Having heard counsel and going through the reasons of the learned writ court, we are of the opinion that whenever interest is common or similar, whether by one stroke of pen, if the impugned notification can be set aside, one set of court fee is only required. In the instant case, considering the relief of the petitioners, the relief as claimed is common. It is not that though by one notification their services were terminated but they have claimed different reliefs. This is how the common interests between the co-petitioners are to be judged in respect of payment of court fee. This being so, we are of the opinion that if one set of court fee is paid while challenging the impugned order in the writ petition, that is sufficient and for individual petitioners no separate court fee is required." 3. This is how the common interests between the co-petitioners are to be judged in respect of payment of court fee. This being so, we are of the opinion that if one set of court fee is paid while challenging the impugned order in the writ petition, that is sufficient and for individual petitioners no separate court fee is required." 3. Another decision on which Sri Baranwal has placed reliance is a judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Ran Nandan Sharma & others V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors., [2000 (3) All PLR 345 : 2001 (3) PLJR 53 ] and my attention has been drawn to the following passage of the judgment, which reads as follows : "4. Thus, what is relevant is that two or more persons cannot join in a single application for a writ of mandamus to enforce separate claims, but where the claims are same and against the same authority, two or more persons can join in a single application for a writ of mandamus. 5. In the present case, the claim of all the petitioners are one and the same as against the same respondent authorities. As such, this Court does not find any reasons for requiring them to pay 32 sets of additional Court-fee for the remaining 32 petitioners. Defect no. (c) with respect to 32 sets of Court-fee wanting pointed out by the office is, thus, overruled." 4. I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel. Payment of court fee on a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is governed by Article 1(d)(i) of Schedule II of the Court-Fees as amended by Section 2 of Court Fees (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1995 (Bihar Act 7 of 1996). Same reads as follows : Schedule II Fixed Fees Application for petition XX XX XX XX XX (d) When presented to a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Rs. 250. 5 Here each of the petitioners is praying for regularisation of their services and for payment of salary in the scale of Class IV employee. Hence each of the petitioners are praying for individual relief. It has to be borne in mind that petition is on behalf of each of them. Rs. 250. 5 Here each of the petitioners is praying for regularisation of their services and for payment of salary in the scale of Class IV employee. Hence each of the petitioners are praying for individual relief. It has to be borne in mind that petition is on behalf of each of them. Although petitioners have joined together in this petition but in my opinion petition shall be deemed to have been presented on behalf of each of the petitioners separately. As each of the petitioners has common and joint interest they may be allowed to present joint petition but the petition being on behalf of each of the petitioners, each shall be liable to pay separate court fee. In my opinion, seeking common relief in a writ petition may be relevant for decision on the question as to whether joint petition can be preferred, but this issue shall have no relevance at all on the question of payment of court fee. Article I of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act provided for fixed fees on application or petition and once it is held that joint petition filed on behalf of several petitioners is, in sum and substance, petition on behalf of each of the petitioners, separate court fee deserves to be paid. 6. There is serious misconception amongst the legal fraternity that in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India court fee is to be paid on the basis of relief sought. Article 1(d)(i) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act provides for payment of court fee on petition and not relief. Grant of relief to one of the petitioners shall not result into granting relief to each of the petitioners. 7. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mota Singh and others V/s. State of Haryana and others (A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 484) this point need not detain me any further. In the said case it has been held as follows : "Having regard to the nature of these cases where every owner of a truck plying his truck for transport of goods has a liability to, pay tax impugned in the petition, each one has his own independent cause of action. In the said case it has been held as follows : "Having regard to the nature of these cases where every owner of a truck plying his truck for transport of goods has a liability to, pay tax impugned in the petition, each one has his own independent cause of action. A firm as understood under the Partnership Act or a Company as understood under the Indian Companies Act, if it is entitled in law to commence action either in the firm name or in the Companys name, can do so by filing a petition for the benefit of the company or the partnership and in such a case court fee would be payable depending upon the legal status of the petitioner. But it is too much to expect that different truck owners having no relation with each other either as partners or any other legally subsisting jural relationship of association of persons would be liable to pay only one set of court-fee simply because they have joined as petitioners in one petition. Each one has his own cause of action arising out of the liability to pay tax individually and the petition of each one would be a separate and independent petition and each such person would be liable to pay legally payable court-fee on his petition. It would be a travesty of law if one were to hold that as each one uses highway, he has common cause of action with the rest of truck pliers." (underlining mine) 8. As I have found that relief of each of the petitioners is individual and grant of relief to one of them would not entitle the other petitioners to have the same benefit and in law each of the petitioners has preferred application. I am of the opinion that each of the petitioners is liable to pay separate court fee. 9. Accordingly, I sustain the objection of the Stamp Reporter. 10. Petitioners are given two weeks time to file 20 more sets of court fee stamp, failing which the application shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench.