JUDGMENT 1. - On 8th of August, 2002 this Court has been pleased to issue notices to the respondents and interim relief has also been granted in favour of the petitioner staying the recovery of the house tax by the respondents in pursuance of the demand notices, Annexures 1 to 9. 2. The matter is placed on the application filed by the respondent No. 1 under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India. The prayer has been made therein for vacation of the interim relief granted in favour of the petitioners. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. In the writ petition the prayer has been made for quashing and setting aside the demand notices Annexures 1 to 9 issued by the respondent 10 no. 1 against the petitioners. All these notices are almost identical in character and nature. Thereunder the petitioners are asked to deposit the house tax of the premises which are in their possession on lease/rent. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent No. 1 cannot levy and demand the house tax on the premises which are allotted to the petitioners by it. This is wholly a misconceived and misplaced argument. The Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 171/1996 M/s. Khadya Padarth Vyapar Mandel, Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan & Others, decided on 17.12.1997 , held that the Municipal Council/Board has all the power of levy/impose house tax on the Mandi yard. The judgment aforesaid of the Division Bench reads as under, "The only controversy raised by counsel for the petitioner is whether the Municipal Board is justified in imposing House Tax on the Mandi Yard or not? According to him, since no service is provided by the Municipality, the tax cannot be imposed. The submission is mis/conceived. So far as tax is concerned, the same has nothing to do for the service rendered by the Municipality. Accordingly, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed." 6. Having gone through the contents of the documents Annexures 1 to 9, it is not the case of the levy or imposition of the house tax by the Mandi Samiti, the respondent No. 1. This is levied or imposed by the Municipal Council, Sikar, the respondent No. 2. Having gone through the contents of the documents Annexures 1 to 9, it is not the case of the levy or imposition of the house tax by the Mandi Samiti, the respondent No. 1. This is levied or imposed by the Municipal Council, Sikar, the respondent No. 2. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment of the premises, to the petitioners, which are filed along with the reply to the writ petition by the respondent No. 1, I find that it was agreed upon by the petitioners to pay the house tax levied/imposed by the Municipal Council in addition to the rent. The house tax is to be paid to the municipality by the respondent samiti and the petitioners are to reimburse to it for the same. This term and condition reads as under. " fdjk;s ds vfrfjDr uxj ifj"kn~ x`g dj Hkh vkids }kjk ns; gksxkA " 7. The petitioners have not come up before this Court with clean hands. Despite of this specific condition in the allotment letter the petitioners have filed this writ petition which shows that they are not acting in bona fide manner in the matter, 8. That apart, the petitioners have also concealed the important fact from this court that the allotment of the premises to them by the respondent No, 1 was with this specific covenant reimbursement of the house tax of the premises to the respondent No. 1 which is to be paid by it to the Municipal Council, Sikar. The allotment letter has not been produced. 9. Not only this, the petitioners have made a wrong statement in para No. 5 of the writ petition of the fact. The pare No. 5 of the writ petition reads as under, "5. That under the terms of allotment of shops, there is no condition regarding payment of house tax by the allottee's- petitioners to the respondent No. 1." 10. The petitioners have made the statement contrary to convenient entered into by them with the respondent No 1. 11. The joint writ petition also otherwise not maintainable. The petitioners have distinct and separate cause of action. Even if it is taken to be maintainable, the court fees is to be paid or payable on nine writ petitions and not on one writ petition. 12. In the result, these writ petition fail and the same are dismissed. 13. 11. The joint writ petition also otherwise not maintainable. The petitioners have distinct and separate cause of action. Even if it is taken to be maintainable, the court fees is to be paid or payable on nine writ petitions and not on one writ petition. 12. In the result, these writ petition fail and the same are dismissed. 13. It is a fit case where exemplary cost is to be imposed upon the petitioners. The petitioners are directed to pay Rs. 2500/- as costs to each respondent. In addition to that the petitioners are to pay the court fees of Rs. 25 multiplied by 8; Rs. 2 on 18 documents multiplied by 8 and Rs. 2 on Vakalatnamas multiplied by 7, total Rs. 42/-, within a period of one month. The petitioners further to deposit Rs. 4 of welfare stamp multiplied by 8 with the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur, within the aforesaid period.Consequent upon the dismissal of the writ petition, the stay application filed there with does not survive and the same is also dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******