Objection, filed under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act. 1870 against the Report/Order of the Taxing Officer dated 10.11.2009 as well as the Report of the Stamp Reporter dated 29.10.2009. 2. It appears that the present Writ Petition, wherein 35 persons have joined as petition­ers, was placed before the Stamp Reporter for getting the same reported. The Court Fee paid on the Writ Petition is Rs. 100/- while Rs. 5/-has been paid as Court Fee on the Stay Appli­cation. The Stamp Reporter in his Report dated 29.10.2009 reported that there was de­ficiency of Rs. 3570/- in Court Fee paid on the writ Petition and the Stay Application. The said Report was evidently given by the Stamp Reporter on the ground that separate Court Fee was payable by each of the 35 petitioners in respect of the Writ Petition and the Stay Application. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners objected to the said Report of the Stamp Re­porter whereupon the matter was placed be­fore the Taxing Officer. 4. The Taxing Officer by his Report/Order dated 10.11.2009 has agreed with the Report of the Stamp Reporter holding that each peti­tioner has separate and independent cause of action and has to pay separate Court Fee. Ac­cordingly, the Taxing Officer has directed the petitioners to make good the deficient Court Fee as per the Report of the Stamp Reporter. 5. Thereafter, objections under Section 5 of the Court fees Act, 1870 have been filed on behalf of the petitioners against the said Report/Order of the Taxing Officer dated 10.11.2009 and the Report of the Stamp Re­porter dated 29.10.2009. 6. The Stamp Reporter thereafter put a Note dated 20.11.2009, inter alia, stating that the matter be placed before the Court. The Writ Petition was presented on 20.11.2009. 7. On 24.11.2009, Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J. passed the following order: "Question of payment of Court fees is not being decided finally at this stage. Taxing Of­ficer has reported that there is deficiency in Court fees and each of the 35, petitioners should pay separate Court fees. Let the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Judge, who is nominated to hear the objec­tion against such orders passed by Taxing Officer. Meanwhile, issue notice pending admis­sion to the respondents." 8. Taxing Of­ficer has reported that there is deficiency in Court fees and each of the 35, petitioners should pay separate Court fees. Let the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Judge, who is nominated to hear the objec­tion against such orders passed by Taxing Officer. Meanwhile, issue notice pending admis­sion to the respondents." 8. Pursuant to the said order dated 24.11.2009, the aforesaid objections filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 5 of the Court fees Act, 1870, have been placed before me. 9. For deciding the question of Court Fee, relevant allegations made in the Writ Petition may be noted. 9A. It is, inter alia, alleged in the Writ Pe­tition that the petitioners were employees in M/s. Triveni Engineering Limited, and were living in the quarters constructed by the State Government under the U.P. Industrial Hous­ing Act, 1955; and that on the closure of M/s. Triveni Engineering Limited and its shifting to some other part of the State, the petitioners got themselves engaged in other factories wherein production was carried on in Naini, Allahabad; and that the rent of one room ten­ement was fixed at Rs. 10/- per month while rent in respect of two room tenement was fixed at Rs. 17.50 per month; and that in 1988, the petitioners were asked to vacate the quar­ters, and several notices were issued to the petitioners, which were challenged in a Writ Petition before this Court; and that this Court passed a Stay Order staying the eviction of the petitioners from the quarters in their pos­session; and that since then, the petitioners have been living in the quarters and they had been paying rent regularly; and that by the order dated 29.11.1990. the State Government enhanced the monthly rent of the aforesaid quarters from Rs. 107- and Rs. 17.50 to Rs. 235/- per month; and that the workmen liv­ing in the colonies in Kanpur filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6373 of 1991 before this Court challenging the said order dated 29.11.1990, and this Court passed a stay or­der dated 31.3.1992 staying the operation of the order dated 29.11.1990 enhancing the rent of the quarters and further staying the evic­tion of the workmen from the quarters in their possession; and that the said Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6373 of 1991 before this Court challenging the said order dated 29.11.1990, and this Court passed a stay or­der dated 31.3.1992 staying the operation of the order dated 29.11.1990 enhancing the rent of the quarters and further staying the evic­tion of the workmen from the quarters in their possession; and that the said Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6373 of 1991 filed by the work­men living in the colonies at Kanpur was de­cided by this Court by the judgment dated 19.2.2009; and that while dismissing the Writ Petition, this Court directed that the order dated 29.11.1990 would be enforced with ef­fect from the date of the said judgment dated 19.2.2009, and the arrears would not be re­covered from the labourers staying in the labour colony; and that the petitioners herein have been approaching the representative of the Additional Labour Commissioner for de­positing the rent but the said representative has begun refusing to accept the rent; and that the petitioners approached the Additional Labour Commissioner but he insisted that the rent would be accepted only at the enhanced rate; and that the petitioners are continuing to live in the quarters allotted to them; and that it is necessary that the respondents be directed to accept the monthly rent as being paid by the petitioners in the past years and not to refuse accepting the same. 10. On the basis of the allegations made in the Writ Petition, the petitioners have made the following prayers: "(i) to issue a suitable writ direction or or­der or a writ in the nature of mandamus to accept rent from the petitioners at the rate at which they had been paid in the past and which the respondents accepted earlier, but are now refusing to accept the same. (ii) to issue a writ in the nature of manda­mus or any other writ direction or order com­manding the respondents not to vacate the pe­titioners from the quarters which they are oc­cupying on account of their failure to pay the rent at the enhanced rate. (iii) to issue any other writ direction or or­der or grant such other and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper in the circum­stances of the case. (iv) to award for costs." 11. I have heard Shri K.P. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Miss. Pooja Srivastava, learned counsel for the petition­ers. 12. (iii) to issue any other writ direction or or­der or grant such other and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper in the circum­stances of the case. (iv) to award for costs." 11. I have heard Shri K.P. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Miss. Pooja Srivastava, learned counsel for the petition­ers. 12. It is submitted by Shri K.P. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the pe­titioners that the cause of action in respect of all the petitioners is non-acceptance of rent. As the cause of action in respect of all the petitioners is identical, joint Writ Petition is maintainable. Shri Agrawal has further referred to the Stay Order dated 31.3.1992 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6373 of 1991, and the judgment dated 19.2.2009 whereby the said Writ Petition was dismissed with certain directions. A copy of the judg­ment dated 19.2.2009 passed in the said Writ Petition was also submitted for perusal of the Court during arguments. 13. Shri K.P. Agrawal submits that in view of the cause of action as pleaded in the Writ Petition, one set of Court Fee is payable, and the Report/Order of the Taxing Officer as also the Report of the Stamp Reporter requiring payment of separate Court Fee in respect of each petitioner, are not correct. 14. Shri K.P. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has re­lied upon the following decisions: 1. Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) represented by its Assistant General Secretary on behalf of the Asson. Etc. v. Union of India and others, AIR 1981 SC 298 (paragraph 63). 2. Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar and others v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bharthana and another, AIR 1984 Allahabad 46 (FB) (paragraphs 34 and 36). 15. I have considered the submissions made by Shri K.P. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners. 16. In order to appreciate the submissions, it is necessary to refer to certain judicial deci­sions including those cited by Shri K.P. Agrawal wherein the principles regarding payment of Court Fee in case where more than one petitioner joins in a single Writ Petition have been considered. 17. In Mota Singh and others etc. etc. 16. In order to appreciate the submissions, it is necessary to refer to certain judicial deci­sions including those cited by Shri K.P. Agrawal wherein the principles regarding payment of Court Fee in case where more than one petitioner joins in a single Writ Petition have been considered. 17. In Mota Singh and others etc. etc. v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1981 SC 484 , dif­ferent truck owners having no relation with each other either as partners or any other le­gally subsisting jural relationship of associa­tion of persons, joined as petitioners in one Writ Petition in respect of the impugned tax, and paid only one set of Court Fee. Their Lord­ships of the Supreme Court held that where every owner of a truck plying his truck for transport of goods has a liability to pay tax impugned in the Writ Petition, each one has his own independent cause of action arising out of the liability to pay tax individually and the Writ 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. Relevant portion of the decision of the Supreme Court is repro­duced below (paragraph 1 of the said AIR): "We have carefully gone through the of­fice report prepared pursuant to the directions given by us. We are prima facie satisfied that the petitioners have not paid Court-fees le­gally payable and that the petitioners have so modelled the title clause of the petitions, as may indicate that the payment of the legally payable Court fee could be evaded. 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 under-stood 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 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 high way, he has common cause of action with the rest of truck pliers." 18. In Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar case ( AIR 1984 All 46 ) (FB) (supra) relied upon by Shri K.P. Agrawal, learned Senior Coun­sel appearing for the petitioners, five ques­tions were referred by a Division Bench of this Court to the Larger Bench. The Full Bench answered the five questions as under (paragraph 45 of the said AIR): "45. Our answer to the referred questions is as follows :- Q. 1 - Whether an association of persons, registered or unregistered, can maintain a pe­tition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the enforcement of the rights of its mem­bers as distinguished from the enforcement of its own rights? A. 1 - The position appears to be that an association of persons, registered or unregis­tered, can file a petition under Article 226 for enforcement of the rights of its members as distinguished from the enforcement of its own rights - (1) In case members of such an associa­tion are themselves unable to approach the Court by reason of poverty, disability or so­cially or economically disadvantaged position ("little Indians"). (2) In case of a public injury leading to pub­lic interest litigation; provided the association has some concern deeper than that of a way­farer or a busybody, i.e., it has a special inter­est in the subject matter. (3) Where the rules or regulations of the association specifically authorise it to take le­gal proceedings on behalf of its members, so that any order passed by the Court in such proceedings will be binding on the members. (3) Where the rules or regulations of the association specifically authorise it to take le­gal proceedings on behalf of its members, so that any order passed by the Court in such proceedings will be binding on the members. In other cases an association, whether reg­istered or unregistered, cannot maintain a pe­tition under Article 226 for the enforcement or protection of the rights of its members, as distinguished from the enforcement of its own rights. Q. 2 Whether a single writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintain­able on behalf of more than one petitioner, not connected with each other as partners or those who have no other legally subsisting jural relationship where the questions of law and fact, involved in the petition, are com­mon? A. 2 A single writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by more than one peti­tioner, not connected with each other as part­ners or any other legally subsisting jural rela­tionship, is maintainable where the right to relief arises from the same act or transaction and there is a common question of law or fact or where though the right of claim does not arise from the same act or transaction, the petitioners are jointly interested in the cause or causes of action. Q. 3 In case the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether only one set of Court-fees would be payable on such petition or each such individual petitioner has to pay Court-fees separately? A. 3 Where a single writ petition by an as­sociation or by more than one person is main­tainable, then a single set of Court-fees would be payable. Else, each petitioner is liable to pay separate Court-fees. Q. 4 In case answer to question No. 1 is in the negative, whether the defect of misjoinder of several petitioners in the writ petition can be cured by requiring each such petitioner to pay separate Court-fees? A. 4 The technical defect of misjoinder of petitioners can, in the discretion of the Court, be cured by each petitioner paying separate Court-fees. Q. 5 Whether the petition is maintainable for questioning similar actions taken by dif­ferent Mandi Samitis independently of each other in cases where the aggrieved party seeks relief against each such Committee on iden­tical grounds? A. 4 The technical defect of misjoinder of petitioners can, in the discretion of the Court, be cured by each petitioner paying separate Court-fees. Q. 5 Whether the petition is maintainable for questioning similar actions taken by dif­ferent Mandi Samitis independently of each other in cases where the aggrieved party seeks relief against each such Committee on iden­tical grounds? A. 5 Our answer to this question is in the affirmative." While discussing Question No.2, noted above, the Full Bench considered the deci­sion of the Supreme Court in Mota Singh case ( AIR 1981 SC 484 ) (supra) and observed as under (paragraph 28 of the said AIR): "28. It appears to us that according to this decision a joint writ petition would be validly maintainable if there is legally subsist­ing jural relationship of association of per­sons between them or if they have the same cause of action. In substance, this decision applies the same principle of procedure as was enunciated by the Full Bench of our Court in Mall Singh's case (1968 All LJ 210), namely, generally joinder of more than one person can be permitted in a proceeding under Art.226 where the right to relief arises out of the same act or transaction or where the petitioners are jointly interested in the cause of action and a common question of law or fact arises. In other words, joinder of more than one person is permissible when the cause of action is the same. Such joinder may not be permissible if the cause of action is similar." 19. Further, while dealing with Question Nos. 3 and 4, mentioned above, the Full Bench observed as under (paragraph 36 of the said AIR): "36. Where a single writ petition by an as­sociation or by more than one person is main­tainable as mentioned above, only one set of Court-fees would be payable. The levy of Court-fee will not depend on the number of persons who have joined in the writ petition. But, where a single writ petition is not validly maintainable, but nontheless several per­sons join in it, then the principle laid down in Mota Singh's case ( AIR 1981 SC 484 ) will apply; namely, each petitioner will have to pay Court-fee separately as if he had filed a separate writ petition. In such cases the writ petition may not, in the discretion of the Court, be dismissed outright. In such cases the writ petition may not, in the discretion of the Court, be dismissed outright. The defect of misjoin­der of petitioners can be cured by requiring each petitioner to pay separate Court-fees." 20. In Saroja Nand Jha and others v. M/s. Hari Fertilizers, Varanasi and others, (1994) 2 UPLBEC 1228 (DB), a Division Bench of this Court considered the answers given in regard to Question Nos. 2 and 3 by the Full Bench of this Court in Umesh Chand, Vinod Kumar case ( AIR 1984 All 46 ) (supra), and held as follows (paragraph 5 of the said UPLBEC): "5. According to the decision of Full Bench, single writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by more than one petitioner, not connected with each other as partners or any other legally subsisting jural relationship, is maintainable in two contin­gencies, viz. (1) where the right to relief arises from the same act or transaction and there is a common question of law or fact; and (2) where right to relief does not arise from same act or transaction, the petitioners are jointly interested in the cause or causes of action. If a single writ petition by more than one per­son is maintainable, then only a single set of Court-fee is required to be paid. In other cases each petitioner has to pay separate Court-fees, even for convenience sake one writ petition is filed by more than one petitioner." 21. Keeping in view the propositions laid down in the above decisions, we may summarise the principles regarding payment of Court Fee in case where more than one pe­titioner joins in a single Writ Petition: 1. A single Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by more than one petitioner, not connected with each other as partners or any other legally subsisting jural relationship, is maintainable in following two situations: (A) Where the right to relief arises from the same act or transaction and there is com­mon question of law or fact. (B) Where though right to relief does not arise from the same act or transaction, the petitioners are jointly interested in the cause or causes of action. 2. (B) Where though right to relief does not arise from the same act or transaction, the petitioners are jointly interested in the cause or causes of action. 2. If a single Writ Petition by more than one person is maintainable, then only a single set of Court Fee is required to be paid, in other cases, each petitioner has to pay separate Court Fee, even if for convenience sake one writ Petition is filed by more than one peti­tioner. 22. As regards the decision in Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Rail­way) represented by its Assistant General Sec­retary on behalf of the Asson. Etc. v. Union of India and others, AIR 1981 SC 298 , relied upon by Shri K.P. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, it may be mentioned that the observations made in paragraph 63 of the said decision (as reported in AIR) pertained to the question of locus-standi. In this regard, reference may also be made to paragraph 33 of the Full Bench deci­sion of this Court in Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar case (supra) (as reported in AIR) wherein the decision of the Supreme Court in Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh case (supra), has been considered. 23. Keeping in view the principles, men­tioned above, let us now consider the ques­tion of deficiency in payment of Court Fee in the present case. 24. From a perusal of the averments made in the writ Petition, it is evident that the peti­tioners are aggrieved by the same act of the Additional Labour Commissioner, namely, re­fusal to accept the rent in respect of the quar­ters allotted to the petitioners. The act of the Additional Labour Commissioner affects the petitioners in general. The challenge to the said act of the Additional Labour Commis­sioner by all the petitioners is on the basis of the same facts, namely, the orders passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition 6373 of 1991 filed by the Workmen living in the labour colony at Kanpur. The reliefs sought in the Writ Petition is regarding the said act of the Additional Labour Commissioner. Hence, the right to seek relief, if any, arises to the petitioners from the same act of the Additional Labour Commissioners. Further, common questions of law and fact are in­volved in such a situation. Hence, such a case falls in category (A) of Principle No.l, men­tioned above. Hence, the right to seek relief, if any, arises to the petitioners from the same act of the Additional Labour Commissioners. Further, common questions of law and fact are in­volved in such a situation. Hence, such a case falls in category (A) of Principle No.l, men­tioned above. Therefore, in case more than one petitioner joins in a single Writ Petition challenging the said act, only a single set of Court Fee is required to be paid. 25. Even otherwise also, the petitioners in such a case are jointly interested in the cause of action, and such a case will fall in category (B) of Principle No.1, mentioned above, in any view of the matter. Hence, in case more than one petitioner joins in a single Writ Peti­tion challenging such act, .only a single set of Court Fee is required to be paid. 26. In view of the above, I am of the opin­ion that the Report/Order of the Taxing Of­ficer dated 10.11.2009 as well as the Report of the Stamp Reporter dated 29.10.2009 in regard to the deficiency in payment of Court Fee are not correct. The Report/Order of the Taxing Officer dated 10.11.2009 is set aside. It is held that only one set of Court-Fee is pay­able which has already been paid, and the Writ Petition is in order. 27. It is made clear that the above discus­sion in the present order is only for deciding the question of deficiency in payment of Court Fee, and there is no expression of any opin­ion in regard to the maintainability of the Writ Petition or the merits thereof. Order accordingly.