Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 987 (PAT)

Anil Kumar v. Bihar Rajya Dwara Sachiv, Manav Sansadan Vikash Bibhag

2012-07-18

NAVIN SINHA

body2012
ORDER : NAVIN SINHA, J. 1. The office has raised an objection that the writ petition requires 11 additional sets of Court fee along with welfare stamp. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a common relief for setting aside the enquiry report dated 9.9.2011 has been sought. Since it is only one order from which the cause of action arises and it alone is required to be set aside, the grievance being common one set of Court fee shall suffice. 2. The enquiry report dated 9.9.2011 reflects that though the order may be one, it essentially deals with and concerns claim for individual payments from the grants received by the University in turn from the State Government. No further discussion is required that the nature of relief sought is primarily and essentially individual with regard to each of the petitioners claiming individual payments of salary on that ground. 3. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon 1998 (2) PLJR 765 (Smt. Krishna Pati Devi vs. State of Bihar). It was held that if the interest is common or joint one set of Court fee is payable. But when the interest is not common and each of the petitioners suffers individual injury as a result of the impugned order, separate Court fee is required. 4. Reliance was next placed on 2000 (3) All PLR 345 (Ran Nandan Sharma vs. State of Bihar). It was held that more than one person cannot join a single application to enforce individual claim and must pay separate Court fee. Only if the claims are common, one Court fee was required. 5. Learned counsel next relied on 2008 (1) BLJ 308 (Sudarshan Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar). Relying on 2002 (4) PLJR 655 (Shiv Shankar Pandey vs. Union of India) which in turn relied upon A.I.R. 1981 SC 484 (Mota Singh vs. State of Haryana), it was held that where the ultimate relief sought be individual in nature separate Court fee had to be paid. 6. The matter was considered long back by the Supreme Court in (1964) 2 SCR 879 (Chandra Bhan Gosain vs. State of Orissa) holding as follows:-- "1. This is an appeal against the order of the Deputy Registrar directing the present case to be registered as nine appeals and requiring the appellant to pay nine sets of court fees. 6. The matter was considered long back by the Supreme Court in (1964) 2 SCR 879 (Chandra Bhan Gosain vs. State of Orissa) holding as follows:-- "1. This is an appeal against the order of the Deputy Registrar directing the present case to be registered as nine appeals and requiring the appellant to pay nine sets of court fees. The Deputy Registrar had relied on two cases of this Court, namely, Lajwanti Sial case (Petition for Special Leave No. 673 of 1959) and Kishinchand Chellaram case (Civil Appeals Nos. 462 to 465 of 1960). We do not think that these precedents cover the present case. 2. In Lajwanti case there were a number of applications under Section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act for reference of the same question. There were in fact a number of separate references but they were dealt with by one judgment from which the appeal to this Court arose. That was really a case of five appeals for the common judgment must be taken to have been delivered in each of the different reference cases. 3. Kishinchand Chellaram case is also not helpful because there four applications by four different assessees had been made for reference of three identical questions arising in each assessment case under Section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act. Though it appears that there was one order of reference to the High Court and the High Court treated the case as a single case of reference, it could be said that there were in fact a number of references. 4. The present case however originated out of one petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of various assessment orders. Obviously here, there was only one proceeding. It could not be said that there were as many proceedings as there were assessment orders for the petitioner had by single petition challenged them all together. When an appeal is taken to this Court from the judgment of the High Court in such a petition, it is impossible to contend that there are more appeals than one. Therefore, the appellant before us is liable only to pay one set of court fee and other charges as in a single appeal. Action may be taken accordingly by the office, if necessary by refunding the excess charges made." 7. Therefore, the appellant before us is liable only to pay one set of court fee and other charges as in a single appeal. Action may be taken accordingly by the office, if necessary by refunding the excess charges made." 7. If the petitioners file 11 more sets of Court fee within a period of one week the writ application shall be maintainable in respect of all the petitioners failing which it shall remain confined to petitioner No. 1 alone. It is unfortunate that the time of the Court was consumed on matters so well settled by repeated pronouncements. The Registrar General will take appropriate steps.