Sangarsh Samiti Pradhan Adhyapak Madhyamik Vidhyalaya Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
constitution of india - article 226 and rajasthan court fees & suits valuation act, 1965--section 20 & schedule ii item ll(r)--court fee--writ filed by more than 1 person--held, fixed court fee of rs. 25/- is chargeable.;the provisions of item 11(r) of schedule ii are attracted in the cases of writ petition and the fixed court fee of rs. 25/- is chargeable on the writ petition, irrespective of the number of persons who have been arrayed as petitioners/members of the petitioner association.;objection over ruled - b.r. arora, j.1. the case has come-up on an objection raised by the office that the writ petition, filed by the petitioner sangarsh samiti pradhan adhyapak madhyamik vidhyaiaya, district rajsamand, on behalf of forty-three persons, should bear the court fee stamps of rs. 25/- for each member of the petitioner association, on whose behalf the relief has been claimed and the writ petition has been filed, while the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, bears the court fee stamp of rs. 25/-only. as the point involved in this writ petition was an important one, therefore, a notice of the objection raised by the office, was issued to the bar council of rajasthan, rajasthan high court advocates association, jodhpur, and the rajasthan high court bar association, jaipur.2. it is contended by mr. mridul-appearing rajasthan high court advocates association,) jodhpur, on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the office has raised the objection on the basis of the order dated 14-8-92, passed by the division bench of this court in a stay petition no. 2780 of 1992 in d.b. civil writ petition no. 2892 of 1992, which has not decided the controversy and only a direction has been issued while disposing of the stay petition that the petitioners should deposit the court fee for the remaining fifty-four persons within two weeks. the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and mr. mridul is that the binding nature of the decision is the principle underlying it and its ratio decided and not a finding of fact and the opinion of the court. in support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance over: the mumbai ka gar sabna, bombay v. m/s. abdul bhai faizullabhai and ors. air 1975 sc 1455, lakshmi shanker, srivastava v. the state (delhi administration) : 1979crilj207 , hussainra khatoon and ors. v. home secretary, state of bihar, patna : 1979crilj1045 , the municipal corporation of delhi v. gurnam kaur : air1989sc38 the punjab land development and reclamation corporation limited, chandigarh v. the presiding officer, labour court chandigarh, and ors. 1990 (4) slr 154, state of u.p. and anr. v. synthetics, and chemical ltd. and anr. : 1993(41)ecc326 ), ca.d. workshop even store workshop welfare committee v. the state of rajasthan and anr. 1992 (1) wlc 241 and sunil kumar and ors. v. the state of rajasthan (s.b. civil writ petition no. 6643 of 1993-decided on 18-5-93). learned additional advocate general, on the other hand, has supported the office objection. it is contended by the learned additional advocate general that as the relief has been prayed on behalf of 43 persons, therefore, each and every person is liable for the payment of court fee, for the relief which has been prayed by them. the learned additional advocate general, in support of this contention, has placed reliance on an order passed in d.b. civil miscellaneous stay petition no. 2780 of 1993 in d.b. civil writ petition no. 2892 of 1992 and an interim order dated 26-5-93, passed by hon'ble mr. justice rajendra saxena.3. i have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.4. previous decision given on a point will operate as precedent if it proceeds on the analysis or the examination of the relevant provisions of law. binding character of the decision is the principle upon which the case was decided and not the causal expression of the opinion. it is the ratio deckendia of a case which has a binding effect and not the finding of the fact or the opinion of the court. if the judgment proceeds on analysis or examination of relevant provisions and decides the point raised in it then alone the principle underlying the decision will operate as precedent. it is the principle on which the case has been decided, which has a binding character and not the statement which are not part of the ratio decided. the judgment of the division bench, on which reliance has been placed, has not decided the controversy in issue. it is only at the interlocutory stage while disposing of the stay petition that the court observed as under: 'this writ petition has been filed by 55 persons and it appears that they have only paid the court fee for one person. the petitioners should, also, deposit the court fee for 54 persons within two weeks. in case the amount is not deposited within two weeks then the stay order will not remain in force.'5. the controversy: whether the court fee of rs. 25/- is payable in the writ petition or the court fee of rs. 25/- is chargeable from each of the members of the petitioner association, was neither considered by the division bench nor has it been adjudicated, upon after taking into consideration the relevant provisions of the law. the order passed by the division bench it not founded on reasons nor on the consideration of issues of law on the point and, therefore, it cannot be said to be a law declared and cannot operate as precedent. the order has been passed at an interlocutory stage without finally adjudicating upon the dispute and.therefore, this court is free to decide the question on merits regarding charging of the court fee in this writ petition. (see ferro alloys corps. limited v. andhra pradesh electricity board and anr. : [1993]3scr199 . it has been held in osband v. rollet 1880 (13) chancellor's division 774(785) that 'the only thing in a just decision binding upon an authority is the principle on which the case has been decided. r. cross in his treaty 'the house of lords and rules of precedent' - law, morality and society: defines the ratio decidendi of a case as 'any rule of law considered necessary by the judges for decision of the case: it is that part of the decision which has binding effect and the fact of the cases play much part in the identification.' it has been observed by the apex, court in the case of: state of u.p. and anr. v. synthetics and chemicals ltd. and anr. : 1993(41)ecc326 as under:'the decision which is not express and it not founded on reasons nor it proceeds on consideration of the issue, cannot be deemed to be a law declared, to have a binding effect as is contemplated by article 141. uniformity and consistency are core of judicial discipline. but that which escapes in judgment without any occasion is not ratio decidendi. in declaration and conclusions arrived without application of mind or proceeded without any reasons cannot be deemed to be declaration of law or authority of a general nature binding as a precedent.'6. in this view of the matter, i am of the opinion that the division bench of this court has not adjudicated upon the dispute and, therefore, the order dated 14-8-92, passed by the division bench of this court cannot be treated as a precedent and this court is free to decide the question on merit regarding charging of the court fee in this writ petition.7. the question, which requires consideration in the present case is: how much court fee is payable on the writ petition which is filed on behalf of more than one person or by the association on behalf of several persons. sub-rule (4) of rule 375 authorises several persons to join in a writ petition and to file a joint writ petition. according to sub-rule (4) of rule 375 of the rules, an application by more than one person shall not be entertained except when the relief claimed is founded on the same question. no objection regarding maintainability of the joint petition has been raised by the office, which means that the present writ petition is maintainable. section 20 of the rajasthan court fee and suit valuation act, 1965, which deals with the manner in which the court fee is to be reckoned and provides that the fee payable under this act shall be determined by computing it in accordance with the provisions of this chapter (chapter iv), chapter vi, chapter viii, schedule i, schedule ii. item ll(r) in schedule ii deals with the court fee payable on the writ petition filed in the high court. according to item ll(r) of schedule ii, the fee chargeable is rs. 25/-on a petition to the high court under article 226 of the constitution of india for a writ petition other than the writ petition of habeas corpus nature or a petition under article 227 of the constitution of india. item ll(r), thus, provides the fee of rs. 25/- chargeable on the writ petition and not on the persons who have been arrayed as petitioners in the writ petition. even the association, which represents a group of persons, has a right to be heard in the matter and it can file a writ petition on behalf of the persons or a class of persons, who, on account of poverty or disability due to economic or social conditions cannot approach the court and in that circumstance the association or some members of the public, in the public interest litigation, can move court for the grant of relief. justice is not a saleable commodity and the court fee, though termed as a fee is not the price levied by the state from the persons litigating before it or for the services rendered to them while imparting justice in connection with their cause. it is virtually a tax raised for general revenue which has been authorised by the entries in the legislative lies and is payable on a claim being preferred in the court and has to be read as it is and more particularly on principle that taking law must be construed in favour of subject. as per item ll(r) the court fee is chargeable on the writ petition and not on the person who have approached the court. the provisions of item 11(r) of schedule ii are attracted in the cases of writ petition and the fixed court fee of rs. 25/- is chargeable on the writ petition, irrespective of the number of persons who have been arrayed as petitioners/members of the petitioner association.8. the court fee, payable on the writ petition is rs. 25/-. the objection, raised by the office, is, therefore, over-ruled.