Smt. Krishna Pati Devi and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
court fee - payment of--common interest--determination--when the interest is not common but similar in the sense that each of the petitioners has suffered individual injury as a result of an order--held, each of the petitioner required to pay separate court fee. - s.n. jha, j.1. there are thirteen petitioners in this writ application. one set of court fee has been paid. the office note points out that twelve sets of court fee should be filed by petitioners. the said matter has been placed for orders.2. learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the aforesaid office note stating that as the petitioners have challenged the same order of dismissal passed against them only one set of court fee is payable and the office note is not correct. in support of his submission he has relied upon judgments of the supreme court in the case of chandra bhan gosain v. the state of orissa and ors. 1957 sc 767 and a.n. pathak v. secretary to the government, ministry of defence and ors. 1987 sc 716.3. in the present case there are thirteen petitioners and they have challenged the order of their dismissal from service. each of the petitioners were in employment and their services were terminated. they came to this court and in pursuance of direction given by this court they were asked to file show cause and after considering the same the impugned order has been passed.4. the cases relied upon by the petitioners do not support the stand that insuch a case one set of court fee is to be paid. in the case of chandra bhan gosain (supra) different assessment orders concerning one person were challenged in the high court by a single petitioner and against that orders an appeal was filed before the apex court. dealing with the said matter the apex court held that as 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 a single petition challenged them all together. there was only one appeal before the supreme court and accordingly only one set of court fee was payable. in the case of a.n. pathak (supra) the question for consideration was whether the joint petition filed by six petitioners challeging the service rule and the seniority list was maintainable. it was held that joint petitioner was maintainable even if the dates of appointment and promotion were different. the question of payment of court fees by each of the petitioners was not involved in that case. in this case there is no question of maintainability of the writ petition. it is maintainable but the question is regarding the payment of court fees only by each of the petitioners.5. there is different between common interest and similar interest. the interests among the petitioners are common or joint when they claim an interest as class or group. in that case only one set of court fee is payable. but when the interest is not common but similar in the sense that each of the petitioners has suffered individual injury as a result of the impugned order then in that case though the interest is similar it cannot be termed as common interest and in such type of cases separate court fee is required to be paid.6. in this case all the petitioner were in service. the order of. removal has been passed in each of the cases and as such each of them has suffered individual injury. in such a situation each of the petitioner of this case has to pay separate court fee though the joint application is maintainable.7. accordingly, i agreeing with the office note direct the petitioners to file twelve sets of court fee on the petition and on the vakalatnama. three weeks time is granted to deposit the same failing which application of petitioner nos. 2 to 13 shall stand dismissed. the application shall be treated to have been filed by petitioner no. 1 only.

Judgment:

S.N. Jha, J.

1. There are thirteen petitioners in this writ application. One set of Court fee has been paid. The office note points out that twelve sets of Court fee should be filed by petitioners. The said matter has been placed for orders.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the aforesaid office note stating that as the petitioners have challenged the same order of dismissal passed against them only one set of Court fee is payable and the office note is not correct. In support of his submission he has relied upon judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Bhan Gosain v. The State of Orissa and Ors. 1957 SC 767 and A.N. Pathak v. Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Defence and Ors. 1987 SC 716.

3. In the present case there are thirteen petitioners and they have challenged the order of their dismissal from service. Each of the petitioners were in employment and their services were terminated. They came to this Court and in pursuance of direction given by this Court they were asked to file show cause and after considering the same the impugned order has been passed.

4. The cases relied upon by the petitioners do not support the stand that insuch a case one set of Court fee is to be paid. In the case of Chandra Bhan Gosain (Supra) different assessment orders concerning one person were challenged in the High Court by a single petitioner and against that orders an appeal was filed before the Apex Court. Dealing with the said matter the Apex Court held that as 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 a single petition challenged them all together. There was only one appeal before the Supreme Court and accordingly only one set of Court fee was payable. In the case of A.N. Pathak (Supra) the question for consideration was whether the joint petition filed by six petitioners challeging the service Rule and the seniority list was maintainable. It was held that joint petitioner was maintainable even if the dates of appointment and promotion were different. The question of payment of Court fees by each of the petitioners was not involved in that case. In this case there is no question of maintainability of the writ petition. It is maintainable but the question is regarding the payment of Court fees only by each of the petitioners.

5. There is different between common interest and similar interest. The interests among the petitioners are common or joint when they claim an interest as class or group. In that case only one set of Court fee is payable. But when the interest is not common but similar in the sense that each of the petitioners has suffered individual injury as a result of the impugned order then in that case though the interest is similar it cannot be termed as common interest and in such type of cases separate Court fee is required to be paid.

6. In this case all the petitioner were in service. The order of. removal has been passed in each of the cases and as such each of them has suffered individual injury. In such a situation each of the petitioner of this case has to pay separate Court fee though the joint application is maintainable.

7. Accordingly, I agreeing with the office note direct the petitioners to file twelve sets of Court fee on the petition and on the Vakalatnama. Three weeks time is granted to deposit the same failing which application of petitioner Nos. 2 to 13 shall stand dismissed. The application shall be treated to have been filed by petitioner No. 1 only.