JUDGMENT : HEMANT GUPTA, J. Re.: Interlocutory Application No. 5264 of 2015 1. This application is for condonation of delay of 170 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the Interlocutory application, we are satisfied that the appellants have shown sufficient cause to seek condonation of delay of 170 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Consequently, Interlocutory Application No. 5264 of 2015 is allowed and delay of 170 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Re.: Interlocutory Application No. 9237 of 2015. 4. The application is to substitute the name of the wife of the appellant no. 1, Late Suresh Chandra Mishra, who died on 09.09.2015. 5. In view of the averment made, the Interlocutory Application No. 9237 of 2015 is allowed and Mostt. Savitri Mishra is substituted in place of Appellant No. 1 Late Suresh Chandra Mishra. Re.: L.P.A. No. 1230 of 2015 6. The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13996 of 2014 on 14.08.2014 restricting the writ application as filed on behalf of the petitioner no.1 alone. 7. The writ application was filed by as many as 32 petitioners claiming interest on the contributory provident fund. The office raised an objection that writ applications should be filed separately by each of the petitioners. 8. The learned Single Judge entertained the writ application on behalf of the petitioner no. 1 alone accepting the objection raised by the office, but given liberty to the petitioners to utilize the Court fee already paid in filing the writ petitions separately. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants points out that the appellants have affixed the Court fee of Rs. 9120/- i.e. at the rate of Rs. 250/- per petitioner in the present writ petition. Since cause of action is identical, therefore, one writ petition should have been entertained for the grant of same relief. 10. It is pointed out that the office objection that separate petition should have been filed will not survive since separate court fee for each of the petitioners has been affixed by the appellants. 11. Since cause of action is identical, therefore, one writ petition should have been entertained for the grant of same relief. 10. It is pointed out that the office objection that separate petition should have been filed will not survive since separate court fee for each of the petitioners has been affixed by the appellants. 11. It is also pointed out that after the impugned order was passed by the learned Single Judge, the writ application bearing C.W.J.C. No. 13996 of 2014 was decided on 21.08.2015 with liberty to the sole petitioner to file representation within three weeks and thereafter the same was to be decided by the Corporation. 12. We find that in the matters raising identical issues and on the basis of similar cause of action, one writ petition can be entertained provided the Court fee in respect of each of the petitioners is affixed. Since the appellants have affixed separate court fee for each of the petitioners, then one petition should have been entertained. Therefore, the office objection cannot be sustained and the order passed by the learned Single Bench accepting office objection is also not tenable. 13. In view thereof, the order passed by the learned Single Bench is set aside. The present Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. 14. However, since the only direction in the writ petition was to submit representation by the sole petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as C.W.J.C. No. 13996 of 2014 decided on 21.08.2015.