Clubbing Multiple Contracts In One Writ Petition Maintainable Subject To Payment Of Aggregate Court Fee: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that in writ petitions relating to contractual matters where the causes of action are different and distinct, a single writ petition is maintainable, however, subject to payment of aggregate court fee as prescribed in Section 6(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Court-Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1956 (1956 Act).
For reference— Section 6(3) states that where a suit is filed based on two or more different and distinct causes of action and seek separate reliefs, one must pay the aggregate court fee payable in case of filing separate suits.
Justice Subba Reddy Satti was dealing with a writ petition whereby a contractor (petitioner) challenged the action of the State in not releasing an amount of Rs.31,18,844/- payable to him in relation to 19 drainage projects assigned by the Gram Panchayat in 2024. However, the petitioner had filed only a single writ petition covering claims arising from 19 separate contracts, each based on a distinct agreement and cause of action, and paid only a single court fee of Rs. 100/-.
Essentially, the Court had to adjudicate four issues– (a) whether the Court-Fee of paid for 19 works under different agreements was legally permissible; (b) Whether the Court-Fee is a Fee or Tax; (c) whether writ petition in contractual matters is maintainable; (d) and whether payment of the Court-Fee was adequate when the writ petition is filed seeking to release the amount based on different agreements, and the cause of action is distinct.
At the outset, the Single-Judge observed that the legislative intent behind the 1956 Act is to facilitate collection of Court-Fee from the litigant in Court and Public Offices, for the administration of justice. Thus, regarding the question on maintainability of the petition, the Single-Judge noted that,
“… In the normal course, since the agreements are separate and the cause of action is distinct, the petitioner had to file separate writ petitions in respect of 19 agreements. However, applying the rationale in Section 6(3) of the APCF and SV Act, the petitioner can maintain one writ petition, subject to payment of an aggregate treating each agreement as a separate and distinct cause of action.
However, holding that the court-fee paid was insufficient, the Single-Judge added,
“… the petitioner has paid Rs.100/- as a Court Fee for 19 different agreements and distinct causes of action. The petitioner entered into 19 different agreements. Of course, the Gram panchayat is one. However, keeping in view the analogy in Sec 6(3) of the APCF and SV Act and the authoritative pronouncement, the Court fee paid by the petitioner is insufficient. The petitioner must make good the deficit Court Fee.”
The Court went on to examine the nature of Court-fee, and reiterated that a Court-fee cannot be termed as tax, as tax is a “compulsory extraction of money from the public, whereas a fee is a charge for special service or benefit rendered”. In this backdrop, the Court extracted five agreements with different certificate numbers/agreement numbers, nature of work and cost allotted to the petitioner.
“A fee that may be charged is towards the privilege or benefit offered or service rendered to meet the expenses connected therewith. To secure revenue for the benefit of the State. The fee is nothing but payment for some special privilege granted and service rendered. However, while enforcing the fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution of India and other Constitutional Rights viz., Article 300-A, revenue generation cannot be the dominant objective and hence insistence of court fee may not be the prime criteria.”, the Court added.
The Court thus ordered the State to release the amount payable to the petitioner, and further directed the petitioner to pay the deficit Court Fee of Rs.1,800/-.
Case Details:
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 27799 of 2025
Case Title: KOTA VENKATA NARAYANA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH