The Bombay High Court has ruled that in cases where joint writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 or 227 of the Indian Constitution, the court fees must be paid ‘per petitioner’ if the causes of action are individual in nature. This decision came in the case of Satyam Surana v. Bombay High Court, and was delivered by Justice Sandeep V. Marne.
Justice Marne clarified that only when co-petitioners share a common or identical cause of action can a single set of court fees suffice. He emphasized that the procedural convenience of filing joint petitions should not be exploited to avoid the rightful payment of court fees. “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 sought a declaration that under the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959, fees should be levied ‘per petition’ rather than ‘per petitioner’. Surana contended that the statute prescribes a fixed fee for applications or petitions presented before the High Court and notably omits the phrase ‘per petitioner’. He argued that requiring separate fees for each petitioner imposes an undue financial burden on litigants.
The court applied a test of ‘common interest’ versus ‘individual interest’ to determine the appropriate fee structure. Justice Marne explained, “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.”
The ruling clarified that litigants must pay separate court fees when the outcome individually benefits each petitioner, such as in cases of service regularisation, pension claims, or recruitment challenges. Justice Marne noted, “Separate court fees under 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.”
More Read
The court further explained that joint petitions are procedural conveniences that help save resources like paper and space, but these judicial concessions should not come at the expense of 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.
Advocate Satyam Surana represented himself in the proceedings, while Advocate Leena Patil represented the High Court.
