Court fee in joint writ petitions payable 'per petitioner' if cause of action is individual: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday held that court fees for joint writ petitions filed under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution must be paid 'per petitioner' when individual causes of action are espoused [Satyam Surana v. Bombay High Court].

Justice Sandeep V Marne clarified that a single set of court fee suffices only when co-petitioners share a common or identical cause of action.

“This facility of convenience made available to the litigants cannot be misused for avoiding payment of court fees,” the Court observed,

The clarification came after advocate Satyam Surana filed an application seeking a declaration that court fees under the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 must be levied 'per petition' rather than 'per petitioner'. 

Surana contended that the statute prescribes a fixed fee for an application or petition presented before the High Court and intentionally omits the phrase 'per petitioner'. 

He argued that demanding separate fees for each petitioner causes unnecessary financial loss to litigants.

The Court applied the test of 'common interest' versus 'individual interest'.  

“In my view therefore, the key to the problem is to examine whether what is sought to be espoused is a 'common interest' or 'individual interest'. It is only in cases where a common cause of action is sought to be espoused that payment of a single set of court fees can be accepted even though multiple persons may join in a Petition,” Justice Marne said.  

The order clarified that litigants must pay separate court fees when the outcome individually benefits each petitioner like in cases such as service regularisation, pension claims or recruitment challenges.  

“Separate court fees under 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,” the judge noted.  

The Court explained that joint petitions are procedural conveniences allowed to save paper, space, and costs but judicial concessions cannot compromise State revenue.  

“By permitting multiple persons to join in one Petition for saving cost, space, paper, etc., the High Court cannot cause loss to the State exchequer in terms of court fees,” the Court held.

Surana appeared in person. 

Advocate Leena Patil appeared for High Court.

[Read Judgement]