Court Fees Must Be Payable "Per Petitioner" Not "Per Petition" When Individual Causes Of Action Are Sought In Joint Writ Petition: Bombay High Court Clarifies

The Bombay High Court has clarified that when a writ petition is filed under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India and where individual causes of action are sought in a joint petition, separate court fees "per Petitioner" must be payable under Entry 1(f) (ii) of Schedule II of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act.

The Court also held that the only cases where ‘same’ or ‘common’ cause is sought to be espoused in a petition filed by multiple Petitioners (either individually or through association), payment of one set of court fees would suffice.

It was observed that the test is to determine whether the relief sought benefits the group as a whole or to individuals.

The Bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne held, "It is accordingly clarified that separate court fees under Entry 1(f) (ii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act is payable on a Petition filed under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India ‘per Petitioner’ and not ‘per Petition’ when individual causes of action of Petitioners are sought to be espoused in the joint Petition. Separate set of court fees would be payable ‘per Petitioner’ when the outcome of the Petition individually benefits the Petitioners. It is only in cases where ‘same’ or ‘common’ cause is sought to be espoused in a petition filed by multiple Petitioners (either individually or through association), payment of one set of court fees would suffice."

Advocate Satyam A. Surana appeared in person, while Advocate Leena Patil appeared for the Respondent

An Interim Application was filed by an Advocate appearing for Petitioners in a disposed of Petition seeking a declaration that in every Petition filed under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the court fees prescribed as per Entry 1 (f) of Schedule II of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 (Court Fees Act) should be levied ‘per Petition’ and not ‘per Petitioner’.

The Interim Application prayed for issuance of directions to the Registry to ensure uniform practice for payment of court fees on Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

It was the case of the Applicant/Advocate that the Registry of the High Court does not follow uniform practice while numbering the Petitions filed under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.

Submissions of the Parties

The Applicant submitted that even though there is no specific provision in the Court Fees Act for payment of court fees per Petitioner, the Registry is erroneously insisting on payment of court fees per Petitioner.

He further submitted that as per Entry 1(f)(ii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, a fixed court fee is prescribed for Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and on the basis of plain language, the expression ‘Petition’ appearing in that Entry means payment of prescribed court fees on the ‘Petition’.

It was also submitted by the Applicant that the plain and grammatical language of Entry 1(f)(ii) enumerated under Schedule II of the Court Fees Act envisages payment of a fixed fee in respect of an ‘Application or Petition’ presented to the High Court. He added that the distinction between the number of Petitioners and the number of proceedings is fundamental and that the Act makes the latter the basis for fixed levy.

Per contra, the Registry of the High Court submitted that the Registry follows a uniform system of payment of court fees per Petitioner in a Petition filed under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. 

Observations of the Court

The Court perused the provisions of Entry 1(f) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act and noted that as of now, when a Petition is presented to the High Court for directions, orders or writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a fixed court fee of Rs.250/- is payable. 

The Court referred to various judgments on the issue of payment of Court fees on a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and observed that there is a consistent view taken by the Apex Court and by various High Courts and especially by the Bombay High Court, that when the outcome of the petition benefits the individuals personally, separate set of court fees need to be paid even though they may be permitted to file a common petition.

"Filing of a joint Petition saves the other cost involved in filing multiple Petitions by similarly situated Petitioners. It also results in saving paper, space, efforts, etc. Thus, High Court may in a given circumstance allow filing of joint Petition by similarly situated multiple Petitioners. This facility of convenience made available to the litigants cannot be misused for avoiding payment of court fees", the Court observed. 

The Court held that merely because the High Court permits filing of a joint petition in the interest of saving paper, space, etc, it does not mean that the Petitioners can circumvent payment of court fees.

It was added that non-use of expressions in Entry 1(f)(ii) such as ‘for each Petitioner’ or ‘per Petitioner’ or ‘for every person joining the Petition’ is not conscious, nor is the use of those words avoided by the Legislature for enabling multiple Petitioners filing a common petition to pay a single set of court fees. Therefore, use of the words ‘Petition’ or ‘Application’ in Entry 1(f) (ii) of the Court Fees Act cannot lead to an interpretation that in every case, one set of court fees can be paid on a Petition jointly filed by more than one Petitioner.

It observed, "In my view, the issue of payment of court fees on Petitions or Applications filed under Articles 226 or 227 of Constitution of India as per Entry 1 (f) (ii) of Schedule II of Court Fees Act needs to be decided by applying the test of ‘individual cause of action’ versus ‘same cause of action’ or the test of ‘common interest’ versus ‘individual interest’"

The Court gave certain illustrations:

1. If a Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by the District Court refusing to interfere in an injunction order passed by the Trial Court and if there are 10 plaintiffs in the suit, who are also petitioners before the High Court, the Petition would involve the same cause of action. In such case, payment of one set of court fees would be sufficient, ignoring the number of persons who may join the Petition. 

2. Suppose a common reference is made by the Appropriate Government to the Labour Court in respect of 100 workers, or if 100 workers file a common complaint of unfair labour practices, and the award or order of the industrial adjudicator is to be challenged before the Court by filing a writ petition, a single set of court fee needs to be paid if the cause is common to all. 

3. If a Petition is filed against a Municipal Corporation for performance of public duty for prevention of unauthorized construction on public amenity land, there would be a common and same cause of action for multiple persons who may join together in one Petition.

4. In service matters, on most of the occasions, the causes of action are individual in nature, but group of similarly situated employees may find it more convenient to maintain a joint Petition rather than filing multiple Petitions. In all those cases what is sought to be espoused is individual causes of action through a common Petition.

It was held, "Thus, when relief sought benefits the group as a whole and not to individuals, payment of single set of court fees on the Petition can be accepted."

The Court concluded that the key to the problem is to examine whether what is sought to be espoused is a ‘common interest’ or ‘individual interest’.

Accordingly, the interim application was disposed of. 

Cause Title: Mr. Satyam A. Surana v. The High Court of Bombay through Registrar General [Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:35070]

Click here to read/download the Judgment