1. In this writ petition all the 33 petitioners have joined together seeking appropriate common writ, order or direction, though in their individual right.

2. The office has pointed out that 32 sets of Court fees are wanting. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the relief and the cause of action being common, no separate set of Courtfee is required to be filed and all the petitioners can pursue the matter jointly on payment of one set of Court-fee. In support of it, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Krishna Pati Devi vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1998(2) PLJR 765.

3. The decision in the case of Smt. Krishna Pati Devi vs. State of Bihar, (supra) is not directly applicable in the facts of the present case as it was a case where by one notification several persons were affected and jointly challenged the validity of the said notification. Under sbch circumstances, this Court held that whenever interest is common or similar, Whether by one stroke of pen, if the impugned notification is set aside, one set of Court-fee is oniy required. The law on this subject is given in Haisburys Laws of England (Second Edition) Volume IX, paragraph 1325 at page 783 in these terms :-

"Two or more persons cannot join in a single application for a writ of mandamus to enforce separate claims. There must be separate applications for separate writs, and this although the several applicants are successors in the office in respect of which the claim arise." (Quotation extracted from the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bishwaranjan vs. Secretary, R. K. Mission, reported in AIR 1958 Patna 653).

4. Thus, what is relevant is that two or: more persons cannot join in a single application for a writ of mandamus to enforce separate claims, but where the claims are same and against the same authority, two or more persons can join in a single application for a writ of mandamus.

5. In the present case, the claim of all the petitioners are one and the same as against the same respondent authorities. As such, this Court does not find any reason for requiring them to pay 32; sets of additional Court-fee for the remaining 32 petitioners. Defect no.(c) with respect to 32 sets of Court-fee wanting pointed out by the office is, thus, overruled.