Kurian Joseph, J.

What is the court fee to be paid in a writ petition challenging several orders on the same set of facts and on same grounds is the question to be considered in this case. The matter was placed before us by reference order dated 28th July 2006 of the Division Bench. It would be profitable to refer to the factual matrix in order to appreciate the issue. Petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. According to him on account of continuous loss he had stopped production during June 2005 upon due intimation. On account of the stoppage of production statutory monthly returns were not filed. It is the contention of the petitioner that though there was due intimation regarding the closure of business, notice on the proposal to levy penalty was issued in the same address and thereafter penalty orders were passed for failure to file monthly returns for the months of April 2005 to February 2006. The orders are marked as Exts.P1 to P11. According to the petitioner the penalty orders were issued in violation of the procedure under Section 67 of the Act, for want of notice. Aggrieved by Exts.P1 to P11 petitioner has filed revision petitions and also stay petitions which are marked as Exts.P14 to P35 and the same are pending before the second respondent. In the meanwhile as per Ext.P36 recovery steps were initiated and hence the writ petition. When the writ petition came up for admission the learned Single Judge felt that since there is challenge on 11 penalty orders, the cause of action being multifarious, the court fee should be paid in respect of each cause of action as held by this court in Writ Appeal No.619/1989 and thereafter in an unregistered writ petition by another Division Bench in the order dated 6-11-1989 wherein the view taken was that when different proceedings are challenged in one writ petition, the petitioner is bound to pay separate court fee in respect of each of the proceedings. In both cases proceedings under the Kerala General Sales-tax Act were under challenge. The only difference is that in the instant case it is monthly returns whereas in the cases referred to above it is separate assessment order of each year. According to the learned single Judge despite the 2003 amendment in the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act prescribing Rs.100/- per petitioner for the writ petition, when different and distinct proceedings are challenged, the petitioner should pay court fee in respect of each of the proceedings. The Division Bench in the order under reference noted that there is another Bench decision of this court in Somanathan v. State of Kerala, 2003 (3) KLT 1148 wherein it was held that on interlocutory applications when more than one petitioner joins in a writ petition, only one set of consolidated court fee need be paid and there need not be court fee per petitioner. Inter alia it was also noted that as the 2003 Amending Act used the expression 'per petitioner' as far as an original petition filed in the High Court is concerned, even when multifarious reliefs are clubbed in the writ petition the court fee is to be reckoned not in respect of the cause of action but counted in terms of the number of petitioners. The Division Bench which referred the matter for consideration by the Full Bench is of the opinion that "a view possible is that petitioner ought to have challenged each penalty order by filing separate writ petition but since common question of law is available, he can be allowed to file one writ petition but separate set of court fees should be paid as if separate petitions are filed challenging each penalty order. Since this is a matter of importance, we are of the opinion that, it should be decided by a larger bench of this Court, and hence, we adjourn the case and place before the Honourable the Chief Justice for appropriate orders."

2. A litigant is required to pay court fee in view of the special services rendered to him by the