Each petitioner in a writ petition challenging a taxing provision must pay a separate court fee as if they had presented separate writ petitions if they have a separate and distinct interest in the subject matter of the petition.

( 1 ) BY consent of learned Counsel, this appeal was treated as having been posted for hearing and we heard them.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is from the order dated 31-8-1981 of Chandra kantaraj Urs, J. , in writ petition of Ramesh Pande and others of 1981 regarding the court fee payable on that petition. The petitioners therein have presented this appeal and for the sake of convenience, they will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioners.

( 3 ) PETITIONERS, thirteen in number, who are individually engaged! in vending liquor in different towns of Karnataka, presented a writ petition under art. 226 of the Constitution, impugning the constitutional validity of new S. 6-B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, substituted by the Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned taxing provision' ). On that petition, a court fee of rs. 100 had been paid. The office of this court raised an objection to the effect that proper court fes payable on that petition in which thirteen petitioners had: joined, was Rs. 1300 and the petitioners had to make good the deficient court fee of Rs. 1200. The learned single judge, who heard that office objection, upheld it.

( 4 ) THE question as to the Court fee payable on a writ petition filed by more than one petitioner, impugning a taxing provision imposing tax upon them, arises for our decision in this appeal.

( 5 ) THE court fee payable on a petition- under Art. 226, is prescribed by clause (s) of Art. 1 of Sch-II to the Karnataka court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), which reads:"petition to the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution for a writ other than the writ of Habeas corpus. . . . . . . one hundred rupees. "

( 6 ) MATERIAL portions of Rule 7 of the writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), which deals with the procedure for filing common or joint writ petition in this Court, as that Rule stood when the instant writ petition was presented, read thus:"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. . . . . . (2) Several persons having common or joint interest but not seeking any individual relief may file a single petition. Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-rule, persons shall be considered to have common interest if the relief sought for by a single petitioner, if granted, would enure to the benefit of the other petitioners, even if they had not joined as petitioners, irrespective of the interim reliefs sought for by the petitioners. Provided that no final individual relief, consequential or otherwise, is sought for in the petition. "

( 7 ) SHRI Kashinathrao Patil, learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners. , contended that the petitioners have a common interest in the subject matter of controversy in the writ petition inasmuch as they have ail challenged therein the constitutional validity of the impugned taxing provision and that this i's not a case where each of them has a separate and distinct interest in such subject matter. He maintained that it is sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Rules, and not sub-rule (1) thereof, as it stood when the writ petition was presented which governed the matter. He strongly relied on the Explanation to sub-rule (2) and submitted that in view of that explanation, the petitioners must be regarded as having a common interest in the subject matter of controversy in the wri't petition because, as contemplated therein, if the impugned taxing provision is declared to