Court Fees Payable 'Per Petitioner', Not 'Per Petition' If Joint Plea Espouses Individual Causes Of Action: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that separate court fees are payable “per Petitioner” and not “per Petition” when individual causes of action of multiple petitioners are sought to be espoused through a joint writ petition. The Court observed that where a “same” or “common” cause of action is espoused, and the relief benefits the group as a whole, payment of one set of court fees would suffice.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne was considering an Interim Application filed seeking a declaration that the court fee prescribed under Entry 1(f) of Schedule II of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959, for petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution should be levied “per Petition” and not “per Petitioner”. The application was filed after the petitioners in the main writ petition were made to pay court fees of Rs.250/- per petitioner.
The Applicant contended that Entry 1(f)(ii) prescribed a fixed court fee in respect of an “Application or Petition” presented before the High Court and did not prescribe payment of court fees per petitioner. He submitted that if the legislature intended the fee to be calculated with reference to the number of petitioners, it could have used expressions such as “for each Petitioner” or “per Petitioner”. The High Court, on the other hand, submitted that the Registry follows a uniform system of payment of court fees per petitioner.
The Court first referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Mota Singh and Others v. State of Haryana and others, where different truck owners with no relationship with each other had joined a common petition, but each had an individual cause of action arising from liability to pay tax. The Supreme Court had held that each petitioner was liable to pay the legally payable court fee on his petition when each had his own cause of action.
Further, referring to various precedents of different High Courts, the Court observed:
“… there appears to be consistent view taken by the Apex Court and by various High Courts and especially by this 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.”
On the contention that Schedule II uses the expression “fixed fees” and Entry 1(f)(ii) provides payment in respect of an 'Application or Petition,' the Court highlighted that the relevant entry does not deal with the situation of filing of a joint petition by multiple persons. It further clarified that the words 'for each Petitioner' or 'per Petitioner' or 'for every person joining the Petition' were not used by the legislature because in a case involving redressal of rights qua 'a Petitioner', an individual Petition is ordinarily maintainable.
“It is a facility recognised by the High Court (and not by the Court Fees Act) under which multiple Petitioners can join together by filing of a common Petition… 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,” the Court remarked.
Hence, the Court held that 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.
The Court further observed that the issue has to be decided by applying the test of “individual cause of action” versus “same cause of action” or “common interest” versus “individual interest”. Where the petition involves a common cause of action, one set of court fees can be paid even though there are multiple petitioners.
“… the relevant factor to be considered is not challenge to the same order of Trial Court or District Court but the relevant yardstick is common cause of action in the lis… 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 observed.
Applying this test to the present case, the Court noted that the main petition had been filed by individual petitioners claiming pension and pensionary benefits, including arrears, and higher pension. Since each petitioner would receive an individual benefit if the petition succeeded, each petitioner was required to pay a separate set of court fees.
The Court accordingly clarified that under Entry 1(f)(ii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, separate court fees are payable “per Petitioner” and not “per Petition” when individual causes of action are sought to be espoused in a joint petition. Where the “same” or “common” cause is espoused, and the benefit is not individual, one set of court fees would suffice.
The Interim Application was accordingly disposed of.
Case Title: Satyam A. Surana v. The High Court of Bombay through Registrar General [Interim Application (Stamp) No.22879 of 2026 in Writ Petition No.9463 of 2026]