When A Petition Is Filed By Several Persons Having Similar Interests But Not 'Common Interest', Separate Court Fee Has To Be Filed: Jharkhand HC

While hearing a reference from a single judge, a Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court has held that in petition filed jointly by several persons, one single court fee is justified where there is a common interest. However, when the interests are merely similar but not common, separate court fee has to be filed.

Emphasizing the difference between the two, Chief Justice Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad noted,

"if 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 would be 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."

In the instant case, pertaining to absorption as permanent employees, the Court noted,

"It is not the case that in case of relief is granted to one of the writ petitioners; then all the writ petitioners would be benefited automatically. Separate orders of authority would be required to be passed for their absorption considering the individual case. Thus, in our considered opinion, in the present case, separate sets of Court fee is required to be filed by the writ petitioners."

The petitioners working as Para Teachers had filed a case for a direction to the respondents to take steps to absorb their services as a permanent regular teachers as done by other State Governments.

The issue for determination was as to whether all the petitioners would have to file a separate set of court fee or only one court fee is sufficient. The Registrar General had overruled the objection raised by the office for filing a separate court fee based on an order dated 20.09.2018 passed by a Division Bench in an earlier writ petition, holding that,

"Registry is not justified in directing the petitioner to pay separate set of court-fee as the petitioners have filed only one writ petition. If the writ petitions would have been filed separately, then there would have been justification in asking for separate sets of court-fee."

However, in the instant case the Single Judge referred to decisions of the Patna High Court in Promod Kumar Akela & ors. vs. The Director, BIT, Sindri, Dhanbad and ors. (( LPA No. 100 of 1999(R)) where it was noted in a batch of 23 petitioners each of them had the independent cause of action arising out of termination of their respective services and thus must pay separate court fees.

Therefore, the matter was referred before the Division Bench in light of the two conflicting decisions.

The Court rejected the 2018 decision (where it was held that since only one writ petition has been filed, a separate set of court fees was not required) for the reason that the aforesaid decision has been rendered without considering the earlier judicial pronouncements and, therefore, that would not have binding precedent.

Concurring with the Patna High Court judgment, the Bench emphasized that when the interest is not common but similar in the sense that each of the petitioners has suffered individual injury, separate set of court fees must be filed.

In the case at hand, the Court noted, the petitioners were claiming their rights, and there is no jural relationship between the writ petitioners. It noted,

"Their cases can be of a similar interest but is not of common interest. As mandamus has been sought for their individual absorption in service, it cannot be held that they pursue a common and joint interest or a class as a whole rather, they are pursuing their interest. Therefore, it has to be understood that ten they are pursuing their relief, although they may have similar interest."

The Court noted that the petition should be deemed to have been presented separately on behalf of each of the petitioners. It observed that if each of the petitioners has similar interests, they may be allowed to present a joint petition, but they would be required to pay a separate court fee for payment of the court fee. It remarked,

It also reiterated based on judicial precedents that the Stamp Reporters would be duty-bound to make scrutiny when several writ petitioners file a writ petition as to whether separate court fee would be required or a single Court fee would be sufficient and as per the law declared.

Case Title: Binod Kumar & Ors v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 18

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order