Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1037 (PAT)

Manoj Kumar Choudhary v. State of Bihar

2013-08-22

RAVI RANJAN

body2013
ORDER : Ravi Ranjan, J. Perused the objection raised by the office. It indicates that eight more sets of court-fee and welfare stamps on affidavit and vakalatnama should be furnished by the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that eight more sets of welfare stamps on affidavit and vakalatnama would be filed by today itself. So far the court-fee is concerned, it is stated that the petitioners have approached this Court for a direction to the respondents to hold examination of the students who have completed the course of M.Ed. for Session 1994-95 from Government Teachers' Training College, Turki, Muzaffarpur under the B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur and for publishing the result thereafter. It is urged that interest amongst the students is common and joint and they are claiming interest of class as a whole. Thus, in view of the decision of this Court in Smt. Krishna Pati Devi and others v. The State of Bihar and others (1998(2) Patna Law Journal Reports, 765) filing of separate court-fee should be waived. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-University submits that in view of the decision rendered by a Single Bench of this Court in Shiv Shankar Pandey and others v. The Union of India and another (2002(4) Patna Law Journal Reports, 655) the petitioners would be required to furnish separate court-fees. 4. I find force in the submission raised on behalf of the petitioners. It has clearly been laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Krishna Pati Devi and others (supra) that there is a difference between common interest and similar interest. If the petitioners are pursuing common or joint interest for a class as a whole then only one set of court-fee would be required, however, in case they have suffered individual injury, then interest may be similar but would not be common. In such situation separate court-fee would be required to be deposited by the petitioners. Similar stand has been taken by the Single Bench in Shiv Shankar Pandey and others (supra). In that particular case, on the basis of the facts involved, it has been held that individually all the petitioners were seeking their regularisation of service, thus, it was held that separate set of court fee would be required to be filed for each of the petitioners. In that particular case, on the basis of the facts involved, it has been held that individually all the petitioners were seeking their regularisation of service, thus, it was held that separate set of court fee would be required to be filed for each of the petitioners. However, in the present case, the petitioners are seeking only to the extent that certain examination should be held by the respondent-University. It appears that the petitioners are pursuing common interest as in case even only one of the petitioners succeeds then examination would be held and the entire class would be benefited. 5. In above view of the matter, the objection raised by the office for filing separate court-fee by the petitioners is overruled. However, as undertaken by learned counsel for the petitioners, let eight more sets of stamp on affidavit and vakalatnama be filed today itself. 6. As prayed on behalf of the State, let this matter be posted on 29th of August, 2013 under the same heading.