Cyriac Joseph, C.J. (Oral):

The challenge in the writ petition is against the order dated 3-7-2007 passed in LA. No. I of 2007 in Application Nos. 3154 and 3155 of 2007. Though notice has been served on the respondents through hand summons there is no representation for the 3rd respondent. Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 and 2.

2. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, we are of the view that the impugned order is contrary to Rule 4(4)(a) of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1986. Rule 4(4)(a) of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1986 provides as follows.-

"(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1), (2) and (3), the Tribunal may permit.-

(a) more than one person to join together and file a single application if it is satisfied, having regard to the cause of action and the nature of relief prayed for that they have the common interest in the service matter".

The above quoted rule makes it clear, that more than one person can join together and file a single application, if they are able to satisfy the Tribunal that having regard to the cause of action and the nature of relief prayed for, they have a common interest in the service matter. In view of the expression "the Tribunal may permit", the persons who join together and file a single application are obliged to make a formal application seeking permission under Rule 4(4)(a). If the Tribunal is satisfied that they have a common interest in the service matter, the Tribunal is bound to permit them to join together and file a single application. The Tribunal can refuse permission only on the ground that the Tribunal is not satisfied that they have such common interest.

3. The petitioners joined together to file one single application in the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. A copy of the application has been produced along with the writ petition as Annexure-B. The pleadings and averments in the application show that they have a common interest in the service matter and that they have a common cause of action and a common grievance. Hence, they were entitled to file an application under Rule 4(4)(a) seeking permission to join together and file a single application. The Tribunal has not found that they have no common interest in the service matter. The objection taken by the Tribunal is that they have paid two Court fees. When two applicants file one single application, they are bound to pay two Court fees. Hence, there was nothing wrong in the two applicants before the Tribunal paying two Court fees. The Tribunal has observed that "if the applicants had filed joint application, the matter would have been different". What was filed by the applicants was nothing but a joint application. The Tribunal has also observed that "for the reasons best known to them, the applicants have chosen to file applications showing as filed by two applicants in two applications and paid separate/required Court fee on two applications". The applicants have not filed two applications. They have filed only one application. Two application numbers were given to the single application by the Registry on the ground that there were two applicants. This practice of giving two numbers for one single application on the ground that there are two applicants is strange and requires to be discontinued. We do not find any justification or any valid reason for giving more than one number to a single application depending on the number of applicants. A similar practice existed in this Court also. But that practice has been rightly discontinued and irrespective of the number of petitioners there will be only one number for a single writ petition, though every petitioner has to pay the Court fee. Therefore, the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal should follow the practice of giving only one number to a single application, even if there are more than one applicant. Of course, every applicant has to pay