The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for separate court fees for petitioners with distinct and separate interests in the subject matter of writ petitions, as interpreted under Rule 7 of the writ proceedings rules, 1977.

( 1 ) THE question for consideration in this appeal is as to whether a court fee of Rs. 100/- paid is sufficient?

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the appellant, as per Rule 7 of the writ proceedings rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules') read with Rule 36 thereof, the court fee of Rs. 100/- paid by the appellant is sufficient. Whereas, Sri s. r. nayak, learned government advocate, submits that respondents nos. 4 and 5 have filed the writ petitions in common form, but each one claiming the relief in his own right; therefore the writ petitions were not for enforcement of any joint interest or joint right; that Rule 7 of the rules, as interpreted by this court in ramesh pande and others v state of Karnataka and others, 1982 (1) kar. L. j. 466 the appellant has to pay a court fee of Rs. 200/-

( 3 ) ON the contrary, it is contended by the appellant that he is one of the respondents in the writ petitions; that both the petitioners have challenged the action of the state government approving his appointment as principal of the college known as gowtham pre-university college, sakaleshpur, hassan district, and the writ petitions have been decided by a common order; that the fact that the writ petitions have been filed by respondents nos. 4 and 5 in common form and a court fee of Rs. 200/- had been paid by them would not in any way make the appellant to pay a court fee of Rs. 200/- because as far as he is concerned, the reliefs sought for by the petitioners against him is one and the same; therefore the division bench decision of this court inananthapadmanabhaiah v tahsildar and executive magistrate, t. Narsipur, 1981 (1) kar. L. j. 505 would squarely apply. It is also further submitted that in another decision of a division bench of this court in writ appeals nos. 1877 to 1887 of 1986, km. Nagaraj and others v state of Karnataka and others, decided on 22nd july, 1986, it has been held that one set of court fee would be sufficient and that further it is directed to refund the excess court fee paid. It is also further submitted that following the decision in km. Nagaraj's case, similar order has been passed by this court in writ appeals nos. 1910 to 1913 of 1992, decided on 30th october, 1992, vignan educational foundation v vinayak and others.

( 4 ) RULES 7 and 36 of the rules, read as follows:"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 petitions, when filed separately. For all other purposes, such as issue of no tice etc. , it shall be treated as one writ petition. Such common writ petition shall be in form No. Ill appended to these rules and shall be supported by the affidavit of any one of the petitioners as in form No. 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. "xxx xxx xxx. 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. "

( 5 ) IN order to determine whether the appellant is required to pay a court fee of Rs. 200/- it is necessary to refer to the cause of action pleaded in the writ petitions and the relief sought for. Writ petitions nos. 13186 and 13187 of 1992 were filed in common form by respondents 4 and 5 respectively. They are the lecturers. They challenged the approval of the appointment of the appellant herein as principal of a college, in which they are working as lecturers. Each of them has pleaded in the writ petitions