Karnataka High Court
Gnana Jyothi T.C.H. College, Belur, ... vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 26 September, 1997
Equivalent citations: AIR1998KANT99, ILR1997KAR3124, 1998(1)KARLJ417, AIR 1998 KARNATAKA 99, (1997) ILR (KANT) 3124, (1998) 2 CIVLJ 310, (1998) 1 KANT LJ 417
Bench: P. Viswanath Shetty, V. Gopala Gowda
JUDGMENT G.C. Bharuka, J.
1.The question of law which has been referred for the decision of this Full Bench is as to whether in a common petition/appeal filed by several petitioners/appellants involving common questions of law and facts, the Court fee payable thereon will be by treating the said writ petitions/appeals as one or distinct. It appears that the present appellants had taken a plea before the Division Bench of this Court that in case any petition/appeal filed is pertaining to a common grievance, then the joint petitioners/appellants are required to file only one set of Court fee. For that purpose, they had placed reliance on an order dated 22-7-1986, passed in Writ Appeal Nos. 1877 to 1887 of 1996. The said order is to the following effect:--
"These are appeals filed by persons who have filed individual and separate writ petitions. In our opinion, it is unnecessary to file separate appeals, since the appellants have got a common grievance against the order made by the learned Single Judge vacating the interim stay in the writ petitions. Therefore, the appellants are permitted to file only one appeal. The excess Court fee of Rs. 1,000/-paid is ordered to be refunded".
In our opinion, the question posed before us depends on a reading and interpretation of Rules 7 and 36 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 (in short 'the Rules') framed by the High Court by virtue of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. These Rules are to the following effect:
"Rule 7. Procedure for filing common or joint petitions.--(1) Several persons having similar but separate and distinct interest in the subject-matter of controversy involving common questions of law and facts may file a common petition. Such a petition shall be treated as equivalent to the filing of such number of writ petitions as there are petitioners and shall be numbered accordingly and the Court fee payable on such writ petition shall be the same as payable on the number of writ petitions, when filed separately. For all other purposes, such as issue of notice etc., it shall be treated as one writ petition. Such common writ petition shall be treated as one writ petition. Such common writ petition shall be in Form III appended to these rules and shall be supported by the affidavit of any one of the petitioners as in Form II. For such common petition one Vakalat with one set of Court Fee Stamp shall be sufficient.
(2) Several persons having common or joint interest but not seeking any individual relief interim or final may file a single petition.
Rule 36. Appeal against common order on several writ petitions.--The provisions of Rule 7 shall, mutatis mutandis apply to appeals filed from a common order".
In our opinion, the language employed in the above quoted rules is plain and simple and does not call for any rule of interpretation. It has been succinctly laid down in the said rule that though a common petition involving common questions of law and facts is permissible to be filed despite the fact that the several persons joining therein may have similar but separate and distinct interest in the subject-matter of controversy, but they will be required to pay Court fees by treating the petitioners/appellants or such individuals as distinct and separate. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that since the present appellants joining hands to file a common appeal but having separate and distinct interest, they are liable to pay separate set of Court fees. It appears that the present appellants have paid only one set of Court fee and the liability of the appellants to pay separate set of Court fees were kept open. Therefore, the appellants are directed to pay the remaining Court fee within four weeks from today. In case of their failure to pay the same, appropriate directions for recovery thereof will be issued in accordance with law.
2. It may be noticed that the writ appeals along with connected matters have already been disposed of on merits by a common judgment, dated 11- 11-1994, by a Division Bench of this Court in Sri Kasi Viswanatha Trust, Ganigarpet, Hoskote, Bangalore Rural District and Others v State of Karnataka and Others .
3. The questions referred to us is accordingly answered.