Bombay High Court: While considering an interim application seeking a declaration that court fees prescribed under Entry 1(f)(ii) of Schedule II, Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 (Court Fees Act) should be levied “per petition” and not “per petitioner” in proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, a Single Judge Bench of Sandeep V. Marne, J., held that the issue must be determined on the basis of the nature of the cause of action and the character of the relief claimed. The Court clarified that where a writ petition combines individual causes of action, separate court fees are payable by each petitioner, whereas a single court fee is sufficient where a common cause of action is espoused by multiple petitioners.
Also Read: Court Fees Act Reforms Under Jan Vishwas Act 2026 Explained
Background
The interim application was filed by an advocate who had appeared for the petitioners in a disposed of writ petition. The grievance raised was that the Registry demanded payment of court fees of ₹250 per petitioner although a common petition had been filed challenging the same matter. The applicant sought a declaration that under Entry 1(f)(ii) of Schedule II, Court Fees Act, court fees were chargeable per petition and not per petitioner. Directions were also sought to ensure a uniform practice across the Registry and a refund of the excess court fees allegedly paid.
The applicant contended that the statutory entry prescribed a fixed fee on an “application or petition” and nowhere required payment of court fees “per petitioner”. He placed emphasis on the heading “Fixed Fees” used by the legislature and argued that had the legislature intended court fees to be calculated according to the number of petitioners, it would have used the words “per petitioner” or “for each petitioner”. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the High Court submitted that the Registry followed a uniform system of payment of courts fees per petitioner in a petition filed under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution.
Analysis
The Court examined the scheme of the Court Fees Act and noted that Entry 1(f)(ii) of Schedule II prescribes a fixed court fee for petitions presented to the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The Court relied on Mota Singh v. State of Haryana, 1980 Supp SCC 600, wherein it was held that separate set of court fees are payable by each petitioner in a petition filed jointly when each has his own cause of action.
The Court referred to Govindrao Atmaramji Warjurkar v. State of Maharashtra, 1976 SCC OnLine Bom 63, wherein it was observed that when each petitioner is individually aggrieved in the matter of his own business, the petition has to be treated as 2 petitions combined into one for payment of court fees.
The Court also considered Machindra v. Ahmednagar Forging Ltd., 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 1316, wherein it was observed that the term “petition” would mean and include a petition either filed by one individual or by more individuals and as such a fixed court fee stamp of ₹250 would be chargeable. The case involved a single complaint pursued by 227 complainants before the Industrial Court and therefore arose out of a common cause of action.
The Court also referred to Santosh Narayan Gaikwad v. Registrar of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 15997, wherein it was observed that where multiple petitioners file a joint petition, the Registry can insist for payment of court fees per petitioner.
The Court also examined judgments of other High Courts and noted a consistent view 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.
The Court noted that Entry 1(f)(ii) does not deal with the situation of filing of a joint petition by multiple persons, and rather it is a facility recognised through judicial pronouncements. The Court opined that a convenient facility is made available for multiple petitioners to come together and seek redressal of their individual grievances by filing a single petition jointly, as it saves the other cost involved and also results in saving paper, space, efforts, etc. But the Court cautioned that this facility of convenience made available to the litigants cannot be misused for avoiding payment of court fees.
The Court observed that the legislature has not used the words “for each petitioner” or “per petitioner” or “for every person joining the petition” principally 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. Therefore, use of the words “petition” or “application” in Entry 1(f)(ii) 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 1 petitioner.
The Court rejected the contention that strict interpretation of the Court Fees Act must be made, as it is a fiscal statute, and observed that no doubt Court Fees Act is a fiscal statute enacted to collect State revenue through fees on judicial documents and processes, and functions as a mechanism for the State to raise public funds and offset judicial administration costs. Ordinarily therefore, when interpreted strictly like a taxing statute, the ambiguities need to be resolved in favour of the subject rather than the State. However, the Court Fees Act is not intended to regulate general civil procedure or substantive criminal and civil rights.
The Court observed that if the Court Fees Act is strictly interpreted, the Court will have to insist on filing of separate petitions by each petitioner for ensuring that the prescribed court fees are paid by each petitioner. The Court further opined that when permission is granted for filing of single petition by multiple persons for the sake of convenience, the court fees prescribed under Entry 1(f)(ii) will still have to be paid per petitioner and not per petition. By permitting multiple persons to join in 1 petition for saving cost, space, paper, etc., the Court cannot cause loss to the State exchequer in terms of court fees.
The Court observed that the issue of payment of court fees on petitions or applications filed under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution needs to be decided by applying the test of “individual cause of action” versus “same cause of action” or the test of “common interest” versus “individual interest”. If the petition involves common cause of action, single court fees of ₹250 can be paid even though there are multiple petitioners. Thus, 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.
Conversely, the Court observed that where several individuals challenge actions affecting them personally, such as claims relating to appointment, service benefits, pensionary entitlements or similar rights, the cause of action remains individual. Even though such petitioners may join together in 1 petition for convenience, each petitioner must pay separate court fees because the resulting benefit accrues individually.
The Court highlighted that the key to the problem is to examine whether what is sought to be espoused is a “common interest” or “individual interest”. The Court observed that in a given case, the High Court would permit multiple causes of action or individual causes of action relating to multiple individuals to be espoused through a common petition. However, it would be incumbent for the petitioners to pay separate set of court fees. It is only in cases where a common cause of action is sought to be espoused that payment of single set of court fees can be accepted even though multiple persons may join in a petition.
Also Read: Del HC: Refund of Court Fees on Remand after Rejection of Plaint
Decision
The Court noted that the writ petition concerned claims for higher pension and pensionary benefits, and success in the petition would have resulted in individual benefits accruing separately to each petitioner. The Court therefore held that separate court fees were required to be paid by each petitioner under Entry 1(f)(ii) of Schedule II, Court Fees Act.
The applicant relied on the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bharthana, 1983 SCC OnLine All 638, which held that a single writ petition by multiple persons attracts only one set of court fees where the petition is validly maintainable jointly. The Court distinguished this decision, clarifying that the Full Bench had itself held that where a joint petition is not validly maintainable but multiple persons join it regardless, the Mota Singh principle would apply and each petitioner would be required to pay separate court fees — meaning the Allahabad decision could not be read as laying down an absolute rule that a joint petition always attracts only one set of court fees.
The Court also distinguished Parul Debnath v. Union of India, 2006 SCC OnLine Cal 25, relied upon by Mr. Surana, noting that in that case, court fees had in fact been paid for each of the 130 petitioners who had joined the writ petition, the Calcutta High Court’s observations about court fees being connected to the service sought, not the benefit expected, arose in a different context and did not support the applicant’s position here.
The Court clarified that court fees on joint writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 are payable “per petitioner” and not “per petition” where individual causes of action are sought to be espoused in the joint petition. However, separate set of court fees would be payable “per petitioner” when the outcome of the petition individually benefits the petitioners. It is only in cases where same or common cause is sought to be espoused in a petition filed by multiple petitioners (either individually or through association), payment of one set of court fees would suffice.
[Satyam A. Surana v. High Court of Bombay, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 10661, decided on 25-8-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: Satyam A. Surana, Applicant in person.
For the Respondent: Leena Patil, Advocate.
