Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 890 (PAT)

Md. Qamar Alam Rahmani v. State of Bihar

2005-09-27

body2005
ORDER There would be five petitioners in the present writ application. The office would have pointed out that four more sets of court fee be required to be filed by the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the relief sought for in the writ application would be common to all the petitioners for grant of Intermediate Trained pay scale and BA Trained pay scale as would have been granted to their juniors. He therefore submits that the nature of the relief sought for being common one court fee would suffice. For the purpose he places reliance on para 4 of a Division Bench order of this Court reported in 1998 (2) PLJR 765, which runs as under: "4. 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 interest 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 application that is sufficient and for individual petitioners no separate court fee is required." 3. This Court would find from the said order that the Division Bench would have noticed in para 2 that the point involved in the appeal was that by one notification several persons were affected and jointly the notification had been challenged. That would not be the case presently. 4. In the present case several petitioners have joined for a mandamus to command the respondents to individually grant them the pay scale of Intermediate trained and BA trained. It is thus manifest that individual benefits would flow to each of them. The facts with regard to each individual in support of his claim would have to be considered. This Court in the circumstances can do not better than quos from the judgment of the Supreme court reported in AIR 1981 SC 484 (Mota Singh & Ors. Vs. It is thus manifest that individual benefits would flow to each of them. The facts with regard to each individual in support of his claim would have to be considered. This Court in the circumstances can do not better than quos from the judgment of the Supreme court reported in AIR 1981 SC 484 (Mota Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.) "..... 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 Company's 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 rural relationship 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." 5. This would be the view taken by a Single Bench of this Court also in the case reported in 2002 (4) PLJR 655 (Shiv Shankar Pandey & Ors. Vs. The Union of India & Anr.). The Bench in paragraph 5 and 6 would hold as under : "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. Vs. The Union of India & Anr.). The Bench in paragraph 5 and 6 would hold as under : "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 21 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." 6. The Court therefore rejects the prayer of the petitioners that one set of court fee is required. 7. Let the petitioners file for separate sets of court fee stamps within one week, failing which this application would .survive only in so far as petitioner no.1 alone be concerned.