High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : B.J. Shethna
Mana Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1491 of 1997
Decided On : 02/17/1999
WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - JOINT WRIT PETITION - NOT MAINTAINABLE - COURT FEES - SEPARATE COURT FEES REQUIRED FOR EACH PETITIONER - DELAY AND LACHES - DISMISSAL OF PETITION - INTEREST ON INSTALMENTS - CHARGING 18% INTEREST ON UNPAID INSTALMENTS - VALID - CHALLENGE TO CLAUSE (III) OF SUB-RULE (5) OF RULE 13-A OF THE RULES, 1975 - DISMISSED - VALIDITY OF THE SAME UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
102 petitioners filed a joint writ petition challenging challans issued for payment of interest at 18% on instalment amounts under Rule 17(8) of the Rajasthan Colonisation Rules, 1975. The petitioners had earlier obtained a stay on the payment of interest, but the stay was vacated. The petitioners then filed separate petitions, but did not affix separate court fees for each petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the joint writ petition was not maintainable and that separate court fees were required for each petitioner. The court also held that the challenge to the validity of charging 18% interest on unpaid instalments had been dismissed in a previous case and that the petitioners were bound to pay the interest as provided under the law.
Issues: 1. Whether a joint writ petition is maintainable? 2. Whether separate court fees are required for each petitioner in a writ petition? 3. Whether the challenge to the validity of charging 18% interest on unpaid instalments is maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A joint writ petition is not maintainable. 2. Separate court fees are required for each petitioner in a writ petition. 3. The challenge to the validity of charging 18% interest on unpaid instalments is not maintainable.
Final Decision: All the petitions were dismissed.
B.J. Shethna, J.-Mana Ram and other 100 persons filed a joint 58 Civil Writ Petition No. 1451/97 before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging challans dated 13-3-97 (Annexs. 5 to 9) issued by the Tehsildar for the payment of interest at the rate of 18% from the petitioners under Rule 17(8) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of the Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 amended in the year 1992 on the instalment amount, which was earlier stayed by this Court on 9-9-8 8 in Writ Petition No. 2963/8 8 (Annexure 3).
2. On 23-4-97 my learned brother P. P. Naolekar, J. directed the learned Counsel Shri Purohit for the petitioner to pay Court-fee in respect of each petitioner separately (as earlier joint Court-fee was paid for all the petitioners) and the matter was ordered to be listed for admission only after payment of Court-fees for each petitioner. Accordingly, the Court-fee was paid by the learned Counsel for each petitioner. Thereafter, on 2-5-94 Naolekar, J. ordered to issue notice to the respondents to show cause as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and disposed of at the admission stage itself In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents filed reply to the petition and raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of the joint writ petition filed by 102 petitioners.
3. On stay petition also, notice was ordered to be issued and the petitioners were directed to deposit the amount as ordered in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1130/89 within a period of two weeks without interest and the respondents were directed to accept that amount. The deposit of the amount was made subject to the result of the main writ petition.
4. On8-2-99 when this matter came up before me for disposal at the admission stage, learned Counsel Shri Ja for the respondents raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of the joint writ petition filed by 102 petitioners. It was submitted by Mr. Jain on that day that earlier joint petition being writ petition No. 1130/89 filed by the petitioners was dismissed also on the ground that such a joint writ petition was not maintainable (see Annexure 4). In view of this preliminary objection, learned Counsel Shri Acharya for the petitioners sought time till 11 -2-99 and the time was granted. On 11-2-99, 100 separate petitions were filed by the petitioners except petitioner No. 1 Mana Ram of writ petition No. 1491/97 in view of the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of joint writ petition raised by learned Counsel Shri Jain. However, separate Court-fee stamp on each petition was not affixed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners on the ground that joint Court-fee Stamp of Rs. 25 00/-in all was paid by the petitioners in their joint writ petition No. 149 1/ 97. The separate Court-fee stamp of Rs. 25/-in each petition was not affixed, therefore, the office placed all the above matters under defects. In footnote 2 of each petition, it has been stated that “2. Writ Petition No. 149 1/97 was filed by Mana Ram & Ors, including the petitioner. But the petitioner now stands advised that there may be technical objection in filing joint writ petition. Petitioner, therefore, files this separate writ petition in his own name and prays that the affidavit and the annexures which have already been filed with the earlier Writ Petition No. 1491/97 may kindly be dispensed with. Court-fee has also been paid by the petitioner as per order dated 23-4-97 passed in the said writ petition and, therefore, tiling of the Court-fee may also be dispensed with.”
5. All other defects could be waived but as required under the Rules, the Court-fees stamp was required to be affixed on each petition, therefore, learned Counsel Shri Purohit for the petitioner stated that he will affix the Court-fee of Rs. 25/-in each petition during the course of the day and accordingly he affixed the Court-fee Stamp of Rs.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.