The Bombay High Court on Tuesday delivered a ruling clarifying the applicability of court fees in joint writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The court held that where multiple petitioners join in a single petition but assert individual causes of action, separate court fees must be paid for each petitioner under the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959. The observation was made by Justice Sandeep V Marne while disposing of an application filed by advocate Satyam Surana seeking a declaration that court fees should be levied 'per petition' rather than 'per petitioner'.
The court rejected the contention that the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 prescribes a fixed fee for a petition presented before the High Court without reference to the number of petitioners. Justice Marne emphasized that the statutory provision must be interpreted in light of the underlying cause of action espoused by the petitioners. The bench articulated a test to determine liability: whether the interest being asserted is a 'common interest' or an 'individual interest'.
Justice Marne stated that a single set of court fees suffices only when co-petitioners share a common or identical cause of action. In such cases, the procedural convenience of filing a joint petition may be availed without attracting additional fees. However, where the relief sought individually benefits each petitioner — such as in matters of service regularisation, pension claims, or recruitment challenges — the court affirmed that separate fees are payable for each petitioner.
The court observed that the facility of joining in a joint petition is intended to save paper, space, and costs for litigants but cannot be misused to avoid payment of court fees due to the state. Justice Marne held that by permitting multiple persons to join in one petition for the purpose of saving cost, space, and paper, the High Court cannot cause loss to the state exchequer in terms of court fees. The bench underscored that judicial concessions for procedural convenience must not compromise state revenue.
The application was filed by advocate Satyam Surana, who appeared in person. Advocate Leena Patil appeared on behalf of the Bombay High Court. The court’s clarification aligns with the principle that fiscal obligations under the Court Fees Act must correspond to the substantive nature of the litigation rather than mere procedural form.
The ruling provides clear guidance for litigants and practitioners filing joint writ petitions, affirming that the determination of court fee liability hinges on whether the cause of action is collective or individual in character. The court reiterated that convenience in pleading cannot override the statutory obligation to pay fees commensurate with the number of distinct claims asserted.