Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 826 (MP)

Rakesh Gautam v. State of M. P.

2011-07-27

ALOK ARADHE, S.R.ALAM

body2011
JUDGMENT S.R. Alam, C.J. 1. Learned single Judge having found difficulty in agreeing with the view taken by learned single Judge in the case of Hukum Singh v. State of M.P. ((2009) 1 MPJR SN (5)) has referred the following question for the opinion of the Larger Bench :-- Whether several petitioners have joined in one petition claiming individual rights based on similar set of facts or cause of action, whether all the petitioners are required to make payment of separate court-fees or one court-fees payable on the petition is sufficient? 2. Before adverting to the question referred to us, it would be useful to take note of the facts of the case. The petitioners had filed the writ petition being aggrieved by the action of respondents in adopting wrong procedure for regularization and in recommending juniors of the petitioners for regularization. In the said writ petition, the petitioners had sought the relief of regularization of their services and other consequential benefits. Since the reliefs sought were based on common facts, a joint petition was filed on behalf of all the petitioners and one set of court-fees of Rs. 250/- was paid. The office raised an objection with regard to the amount of court-fees on the ground that the petitioners being three in number ought to have paid court-fees of Rs. 750/-. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, placed reliance on the decision in the case of Hukum Singh (supra) and submitted that only one set of court-fees is payable and, therefore, the office objection may be overruled. However, the learned single Judge did not agree with the view taken in Hukum Singh's case (supra) and by order dated 29-6-2010, referred the question of payment of court-fees in a joint petition claiming individual rights based on similar set of facts or cause of action for our consideration. 4. Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel who has appeared as amicus curiae has drawn our attention to Section 4 of the Court-fees Act read with Article 1(e)(ii) of Scheduled II of the Court-fees Act and has contended that Court-fees Act provides for payment of court-fees on petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the purposes of determination of quantum of court-fees payable on writ petition, number of persons is totally an irrelevant consideration. For the purposes of determination of quantum of court-fees payable on writ petition, number of persons is totally an irrelevant consideration. It was contended by learned senior counsel that so long as several persons could jointly maintain writ petition, one set of court-fees is sufficient. Even though provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Principles underlying the provisions contained in Code of Civil Procedure are applicable and it is open to the Court to direct separate cases to be registered where number of persons have been joined as petitioners claiming similar reliefs against the respondents on the basis of distinct and separate cause of action. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the question of payment of court-fee, has to be decided on the anvil whether or not several persons can be permitted to be joined in one writ petition. If they cannot remain joint in one writ petition then they have to file separate writ petitions and to make payment of separate court-fee in respect of relief claimed by them. The question of payment of court-fee is connected with reliefs claimed and not the benefits expected to flow from the orders. In support of his submission, learned counsel has referred to single Bench decision of this Court in Heavy Electrical Employees Union v. State of Industrial Court, M. P., Indore, 1976 MPLJ 6 and decision of Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Parul Debnath v. Union of India, 2006 Cal HN-1-3-462, 2006 Cal LJ 621: (AIR 2006 Cal 906 (NOC). 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate General while referring to provisions of Rule 23, Chapter X of the High Court of M.P. Rules, 2008 has submitted that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to be filed as far as possible in Format 7 and as far as possible conform to the provisions of Order 2, Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has further been contended that if several petitioners claiming similar reliefs file a writ petition jointly on the basis of distinct and separate causes of action in such a case, the Court may for the sake of convenience allow the petitioners to prosecute a joint petition subject to the condition that each of them pays separate court-fee on the principles underlying Section 17 of the Court-fees Act. It has further been submitted that in a writ petition filed jointly by several petitioners, here more than one relief is claimed on the basis of same cause of action, then also separate set of court-fee is required to be paid. It has further been contended that Full Bench of this Court in S. P. Anand v. Registrar General, M.P. High Court, Jabalpur, ( 2008 (4) MPHT 279 : AIR 2009 MP 1 ) was dealing with the issue with regard to payment of security amount in public interest litigation. Therefore, the aforesaid decision is of no assistance while deciding the question of payment of court-fee in a writ petition which has been filed jointly by several petitioners claiming similar relief. In support of his submissions, learned Advocate General has placed reliance on Full Bench decision of Karnataka High Court in Cochin Trawl Net Boat Operators Association v. State of Kerala, AIR 1992 Karn 342, Gnana Jyothi TCH College, Belur v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1998 Karn 99, Full Bench decision of Madras High Court in Inre, D. Lakshminarayana Chettiar, AIR 1954 Mad 594 , Full Bench decision of Guwahati High Court in Sri Achinta Mili v. State of Assam, AIR 1995 Gau 1 and in Mota Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 484 . 6. We have considered the submissions made on both sides. At this stage, we deem it appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Court-fees Act, 1870, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 4 of the Act prescribes the court-fees on the documents filed in the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Article 1(e)(a) of Schedule II of the Act prescribes the court-fees of Rs. 250/- on a writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Section 4 of the Act prescribes the court-fees on the documents filed in the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Article 1(e)(a) of Schedule II of the Act prescribes the court-fees of Rs. 250/- on a writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Section 17 of the Act provides that in any suit in which two or more separate and distinct causes of action are joined and separate and distinct reliefs are sought in respect of each, the plaint shall be chargeable with the aggregate amount of the fees with which the plaints would be chargeable under this Act if separate suits were instituted in respect of each suit cause of action. 7. In Mota Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 484 , independent truck owners having no relations with each other as partners or under any other legally subsisting jural relationship of association of persons filed a common petition by paying single court-fees challenging liability to pay impugned tax. The Apex Court held that since each one has his own cause of action arising out of liability to pay tax individually, therefore, the petition of each one would be a separate and independent petition and each such person would be liable to pay legally payable court-fees on his petition. Their Lordships observed that it would be 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. 8. It is well settled legal proposition that even though provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet principles underlying them are applicable. (See (2010) 1 SCC 234 : ( AIR 2010 SC 475 ), Bharat Amratlal Kothari v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi). Thus, the joinder of more than one person under Article 226 and be permitted 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 to claim relief does not arise from same act or transaction, the petitioners are jointly interested in the cause or causes of action. In other words, joinder of more than one person is permissible when the cause of action is the same. In other words, joinder of more than one person is permissible when the cause of action is the same. Our view finds support from the Full Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, AIR 1984 All 46 . Therefore, in a case where in a petition number of persons have joined as petitioners claiming similar reliefs against a party on the basis of distinct and separate causes of action, in such a case also, the Court may for the sake of convenience allow the petitioners to prosecute a joint petition subject to the condition that each one of them have paid separate court-fee on the principle underlying Section 17 of the Act. 9. Thus, cause of action may be common if the liability or the relief sought is to be granted individually and separately in that event each petitioner's combining together in one petition would be liable to pay separate court-fees, because each petitioner has his own independent cause of action and, therefore, though they have filed the petition together but that is a separate and independent petition. Separate court-fees can be demanded from each of the petitioners only when it appears to the Court that causes of action are distinct and separate. For instance, ten persons are transferred by a common order and they file a joint petition challenging the order of transfer, the relief claimed by them is based on separate causes of action and, therefore, in such a case they are liable to pay separate set of court-fees. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the considered opinion that in a joint petition where each of the petitioner has his separate cause of action which may or may not arise out of the same act or transaction, each of the petitioner is required to pay separate court-fees on the principle underlying Section 17 of the Act. Thus, our answer to the reference is where more than one person have joined in one petition and are seeking relief on distinct and separate causes of action, then each of the petitioner is required to make payment of separate court-fees. 11. Let the matter be now placed before the appropriate Bench for orders.