ASHOK MENON, J.

1. Maradu Market Trader's Association is the petitioner and seek police protection against the alleged atrocities perpetrated by respondents 5 and 6 and their men causing obstruction to the loading and unloading work, hitherto done by the own workers of the traders.

2. The Association consists of 138 traders and protection is sought by the Association for and on behalf of all these traders named in Ext.P18.

3. The preliminary question that arose before us is whether the petitioner being an Association representing traders and seeking relief for 138 persons named in Ext.P18 should pay court fee as per Schedule II, Article 11(l)(iii) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 at the rate of Rs. 100/- per person?

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that Schedule II Article 11(t) requires payment of court fees of Rs. 10/- alone and it does not insist payment per petitioner. He relies on the decision in Somanathan vs. State of Kerala, 2003 (3) KLT 1148 in support of his argument.

5. In the case of Kerala Electric Trades Association, Kochi vs. State of Kerala, 2010 (1) KHC 248, the writ petition filed by three members of an Association on payment of court fee of Rs. 300/- alone was found to be insufficient as the first petitioner therein had claimed to have 300 members and therefore, the Single Bench of this Court held that court fee has to be paid for each of the beneficiaries. In the aforesaid decision, the Single Bench held as follows:-

“18. Similarly, the petitioners have also not paid the requisite Court fee on behalf of all such members, but for having effected a sum of Rs. 300/- in respect of the three petitioners. Schedule II, 11(1)(iii) under the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act clearly stipulates that the court fee payable in respect of the Writ Petition filed before the High Court is Rs. 100/- per petitioner. If any relief is claimed by several persons, the court fee payable shall be Rs. 100/- by each such person. In the instant case, the specific contention of the respondents is that, while challenging the legislative competence behind sub-section (5A) to demand fee for renewal of registration, admittedly since the Writ Petition has been filed on behalf of all the members of the first petitioner Association, who are enlisted in Ext. P2, the proceedings cannot be held as legally maintainable in respect of all such persons, unless requisite Court fee is paid by all the members as aforesaid. The legal position in this regard has already been made clear by this Court in Mathew vs. Edathua Panchayat, 1988 (2) KLT 329. It becomes more clear from the verdict passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1164 of 2002 and connected cases (reported in CDJ 2008 Ker. HC 803), where the matter was entertained only after collecting the requisite court fee from all the members, who were stated as the beneficiaries and pursuant to the order granting permission to prosecute the Writ Petition in a representative capacity on behalf of all such persons. Since the petitioners have not chosen to produce the requisite materials authorising them to file the Writ Petition in a representative capacity, nor have they filed any proceedings for obtaining permission in this regard and further since no separate Court fee in respect of all the members enlisted in Ext. P2 has been paid, the Writ Petition is not at all maintainable in respect of all other members, who are enlisted in Ext. P2 and the matter is being dealt with and confined to the petitioners alone.”

6. The learned Single Judge had in Kerala Electric Trades Association (supra) relied on the decision in Mathew vs. Edathua Panchayat, 1988 KHC 443. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the decision in Mathew (supra) was prior to the amendment of the Court Fees Act, which took place on 26.10.2002 by which the phrase “hundred rupees per petitioner” was introduced, instead of “twenty rupees.” The learned counsel for the p