Multiple petitioners can file a single writ petition with one set of court fees if their cause of action is common, but if each petitioner has a separate and independent cause of action, they must file separate writ petitions or pay separate court fees if filing jointly.

R.A.Sharma, J.

1. As in both these appeals, the question involved is the same, namely, the quantum of Court fee to be paid in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by more than one person, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Six appellants in L.P.A. No. 47/99R along with 17 others filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2814/98R with one set of Court fee before this Court seeking appropriate writ or direction upon the respondents to reinstate them, regularize their services and pay them salary at par with the other regular employees working under the Central Coalfields Ltd. There was also prayer for payment of back wages upon their reinstatement in service. On an objection being raised regarding deficiency of Court fee, a learned Single Judge, vide order dated 25.1.99, held that the petitioners therein are to pay separate Court fee for their separate reliefs. As regards payment of Court fee by such petitioners who are members of the Scheduled Caste, the learned Judge observed that they should apply to the Legal Aid Committee for, exemption from payment of Court-fees. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the six out of 23 writ petitioners have filed this appeal under Clause 10 of the letters patent.

3. L.P.A No. 100/99R has been filed by 7 persons who filed the writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 22/99R with one set of Court fee seeking appropriate writ or direction upon the respondents to permit them to sit at the supplementary examination of 1998 years of B.Sc. (Engineering) of the first year in separate branches namely Mechanical, Civil, Electrical and Electronics courses which was to commence from 12.1.99. In this petition also, an objection was raised regarding deficiency of Court fees. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 28.1.99 upheld the objection holding that the petitioners for to deposit separate sets of Court fees. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Judge, they have filed this appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent.

4. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants in these appeals is that as the grievances of the appellants in their respective writ petitions are same and identifical, payment of one set of Court fee in a writ petition is sufficient. The submission of the learned Government Advocate on the other hand is that if a writ petition is filed by more than one person each petitioner has to pay separate set of Court fee.

5. The Court Fee (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1996, has fixed Rs. 250.00 as Court fee for an application/petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Payment of Court fee does not depend on the number of persons who filed the writ petition. If a single writ petition filed by several persons is maintainable, only one set of Court fee is payable. But if such a writ petition is not maintainable then each person has to file a separate writ petition with one set of Court fee. But if such persons, who cannot maintain a single joint writ petition, instead of filing separate writ petitions, have filed a single writ petition, each of them has to pay separate Court fee.

6. More than one person can tile a single writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if their cause of action is the same or common. But if each petitioner has separate and independent cause of action then each of them has either to file a separate writ petition or to pay separate Court fee if the writ petition has been filed jointly.

7. In D.R. Millets V/s. Commissioner Civil Supplies -- , the appellants therein, who were dealers in the food grains holding licences granted to them in accordance with the Control Orders issued under the relevant Statutes, filed writ petitions for a writ directing the State to refund the amount of money collected from them as administrative charges. The apex Court held that each petitioner has individual and independent cause of action and, ther