ORDER : Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. 1. This is a disposed off petition, which was listed time and again for recovery of deficit court fees of Rs.93,750/- from the Petitioner, which is the RBSK Contractual Medical Officer Union. The Registry of this Court has calculated the amount of deficit Court Fees in terms of the number of members of the Petitioner Union and in the light of the reliefs sought individually. 2. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner has contended that as the petition was filed by only one union, it should be presumed that only one individual has approached the Court. He relies upon the following judgments : [a] Ravindra Dattatraya Choudhary and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (WP No.9106/2020 dated 07.10.2010 ). [b] Santosh Narayan Gaikwad and another Vs. The Registrar of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (WP No.3634/2011 decided on 30.11.2016). 3. Considering the peculiar facts of this case wherein this Court did not grant the prayers sought by the Petitioner and instead directed that the proposal be decided, it would be appropriate to understand the Law settled by this Court, before we advert to the facts of this case. 4. In Ravindra Choudhary (supra), this Court [Coram :- B.R. Gavai (as His Lordship then was) and A.A. Sayed (as His Lordship then was), JJ] concluded in paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 as under :- "9. In the various petitions filed, for example, regarding acquisition of land, it could be seen that the case of each of the petitioners pertains to different lands owned by each of the petitioners. It can be seen that each of the petitioners would be required to be treated as aggrieved independently. Likewise, when the petitioners file a common petition for payment of rental compensation, each petitioner would be aggrieved person and claiming his individual right, in so far as grant of rental compensation is concerned. Even in service matters, for example, in cases claiming promotion, though number of petitioners file a joint petition, they would be agitating independent grievances of claiming promotion for themselves and would be required to be treated as aggrieved independently. The same would also be the position where number of persons file a joint petition claiming appointments or benefit of certain Government Resolutions. We also have come across various petitions challenging the orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee. The same would also be the position where number of persons file a joint petition claiming appointments or benefit of certain Government Resolutions. We also have come across various petitions challenging the orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioners challenge the independent orders passed against them and, as such, would have to be treated as aggrieved independently. Similar is the case with the students who file joint petition for certain benefits. 10. In that view of the matter, we find that in view of the decisions of earlier Division Benches, the petition will have to be construed not as a joint petition but various petitions combined in one. As such, the court fees that would be required to be paid in such petitions would be per petitioner and not one set of court fees for the entire petition." (emphasis supplied) 5. In Santosh Gaikwad and Another (supra), the learned Full Bench of this Court [Coram : B.R. Gavai, (as His Lordship then was), R.K. Deshpande and V.M. Deshpande, JJJ], concluded in paragraph Nos. 4 to 7 as under:- "4. It appears that the Registry had issued the said Circular on the basis of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.825 of 2006, dt.6.9.2010. It further appears that the Division Bench had passed an order dt.6.9.2010 in Writ Petition No.825 of 2016 along with Companion Petitions on the basis of orders passed in Special Civil Application No.1259 of 1975, dt.29.6.1976. It further appears that the Division Bench of this Court in present Writ Petition No.3634 of 2011 had referred the following question to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for placing the same before the Larger Bench : “Whether a Cooperative Society filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court for redressal of common grievance of its members, is required to pay separate court fee qua such member”. 5. The Hon'ble Chief Justice was pleased to direct the said matter to be placed before the Larger Bench of this Court. The Larger Bench of three Judges vide order dt.3.10.2016 has held that the issue as to whether the fees are to be paid in single set or on the basis of number of members of the Association registered or unregistered will depend upon the nature and challenges and the relief claimed in the petition. Accordingly, the reference was answered. 6. The Larger Bench of three Judges vide order dt.3.10.2016 has held that the issue as to whether the fees are to be paid in single set or on the basis of number of members of the Association registered or unregistered will depend upon the nature and challenges and the relief claimed in the petition. Accordingly, the reference was answered. 6. We are of the considered view that such a general notice, as issued by the Registrar, would not be sustainable in law. No strait-jacket formula can be laid down to direct that wherever the petition is filed by the Association or any registered or unregistered organization claiming reliefs in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners shall furnish names of members of the petitioner- Association or any registered or unregistered organization and pay Court fees qua each member of the Association. We find that the Registry has totally misconstrued the order passed by the Division Bench dt.6.9.2010 in Writ Petition No.825 of 2006 along with Companion matters and in Special Civil Application No.1259 of 1975. 7. In Special Civil Application No.1259 of 1975, two individuals had challenged virus of Ordinance No.7 of 1995 challenging therein that unreasonable restrictions were imposed upon the rights of the petitioners in their profession of money lending. It appears that hyper-technical objection was raised by the Government Pleader appearing therein that both the petitioners had an independent cause of action and therefore, though the petition was filed as one petition, the same should be treated as two petitions and two sets of Court fees should be directed to be paid. Upholding the objections raised by the Government Pleader that both the petitioners were having their independent businesses, the Court directed that two sets of Court fees should be deposited qua each of the petitions. Again, in Writ Petition No.825 of 2006 along with the Companion Petitions, it appears that the petitions were filed by various Federations of various Banks. Since we are not having record of those petitions, it will not be possible for us to find out as to what were the reliefs claimed in the said petition. Again, in Writ Petition No.825 of 2006 along with the Companion Petitions, it appears that the petitions were filed by various Federations of various Banks. Since we are not having record of those petitions, it will not be possible for us to find out as to what were the reliefs claimed in the said petition. Prima facie, it appears that the reliefs claimed in the said petition were the reliefs to each of the members of the Association and therefore, in that view of the matter, the learned Judges of the Division Bench directed that whenever there is a petition by the Association or any registered or unregistered organization claiming the reliefs in favour of their members, the petitioners should pay Court fees qua each member of the Association. As such, the petitioners were directed to disclose the names of each member of the petitioner- Association and to pay Court fees qua each member of the Association. We may again reiterate that the words used in the said order dt.6th September, 2010 are “claiming relief in favour of their members”. (Emphasis supplied) 6. It is, thus, crystallized that if a group of Petitioners approach this Court through a Union, by preferring a common / single writ petition, the nature of the relief that is being sought by each of the Petitioners, will have to be considered. As is held in paragraph No.9 in Ravindra Choudhary (supra), even in service matters, when number of Petitioners may file a joint petition, though they would be agitating their independent grievances for claiming independent reliefs for themselves, they would have to be treated as grievances voiced independently. In so far as claiming the benefits under a Government Resolution, this Court concluded that number of persons filing a joint petition claiming appointments or benefits of said GR, will also have to be treated as claiming independent reliefs / benefits for each individual. 7. In the light of the above, it is not relevant as to what is the relief that was finally granted by this Court, for the reason that it is the discretion of the Court to consider as to what relief is to be granted, in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court fees to be paid would not depend upon the outcome of the case. The Court fees to be paid would not depend upon the outcome of the case. If that was to be, would a Petitioner argue that the court fees be decided after the Court grants particular relief. Therefore, if the Court is to dismiss a Writ Petition, there would be no question of refund of Court fees. If a petition is disposed off, it would not mean that the Court fees will have to be refunded. It would depend upon the individual cause of action brought before the Court, maybe in a group or under the umbrella of a Union, when specific benefits individually demanded, would be the relevant aspect. 8. In this backdrop, we deem it apposite to reproduce the entire prayer clauses put forth by the Petitioner Union of Medical Officers, as under:- "A. The Writ Petition may please be allowed. B. It may be hold and declare that, the Medical Officers appointed for Rashtriya Bal Swasthya Karyakram which is undertaken by National Rural Health Mission are entitle to extend benefit of permanency by virtue of the Government Resolution dated 19.09.1975 bearing No.SRV-1075-X issued by Respondent No.2. C. This Hon'ble Court may please to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ in like nature order or directions, the respondents may kindly be directed to implement the report of an expert committee dated 19.11.2013 annexed to exhibit B to this petition. D. Pending the hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, the medical officers appointed for Rashtriya Bal Swasthya Karyakram, which is undertaken by National Rural Health Mission are entitle to extend benefit of permanency by virtue of the Government Resolution dated 19.09.1975 bearing No.SRV-1075-X issued by respondent No.2. E. Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause D may be granted." 9. It is, therefore, obvious that each of the persons who approached this Court under the Union, desired the benefit of permanency for himself individually by virtue of the Government Resolution dated 19.09.1975. To make things clear, we would take an illustration viz. such 100 medical officers approached this Court seeking permanency. It is not necessary that each of them would be granted permanency. After assessing each case individually, this Court would conclude as to who amongst them was entitled for granting permanency. Those who are dis-entitled, would suffer an order of rejection. To make things clear, we would take an illustration viz. such 100 medical officers approached this Court seeking permanency. It is not necessary that each of them would be granted permanency. After assessing each case individually, this Court would conclude as to who amongst them was entitled for granting permanency. Those who are dis-entitled, would suffer an order of rejection. Therefore, in the case in hands, it would not be relevant that this Court eventually disposed off the petition by directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to decide the proposal pending before them. The Union had approached this Court on behalf of 375 practicing Doctors whose names are enlisted in Annexure 'G' at page No.50. It cannot be ignored that Membership of such a Union does not come free. It is only after depositing the subscription that the Membership is granted. From the funds collected, the Union litigates on behalf of its members. 10. While registering a Writ Petition, Court Fees are charged by considering the prayers put forth and the number of individual persons who would be seeking orders/reliefs from the Court. Therefore, the argument of the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that the Court fees should be reduced in the light of the final order passed by the Court, is fallacious. 11. In view of the above, we hold and conclude that Petitioner No.1 / Union, who was espousing the cause for seeking individual regularization/permanency for 375 doctors, will have to deposit the deficit fees of Rs.93,750/-. We direct that the said amount be deposited in this Court within 30 days. A compliance report be placed by the registry before us within 7 days thereafter.