- (1.) THE writ petition is filed by Uttar Pradesh Sasta Ghalla Vikreta Parishad, Shahjahanpur (Reg.) through its District Unit President to which the Taxing Officer of this Court has raised objection with regard to deficiency of Court fees and directed to make good the deficiency of Court fees as per the direction. The Taxing Officer considered, AIR 1989 SC 484 Mota Singh and Ors. etc. v. State of Haryana and Ors. etc. and also : AIR 1984 All. 46 Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar and Ors. v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Bharthana and Anr.
(2.) WE have taken note of both the cases and find in the Mota Singh's case (Supra) which is as follows: We have carefully gone through the office report prepared pursuant to the directions given by us. We are prima facie satisfied that the petitioners have not paid court fees legally payable and that the petitioners have so modelled the title clause of the petitions as may indicate that the payment of the legally payable court fees could be evaded. Having regard to the nature of these cases where every owner of a truck plying his truck for transport of goods has a liability to pay tax impugned in the petition, each one has his own independent cause of action. A firm as understood under the Partnership Act or a Company as understood under the Indian Companies Act, if it is entitled in law to commence action either in the firm name or in the Company's name, can do so by filing a petition for the benefit of the company or the partnership and in such a case court fee would be payable depending upon the legal status of the petitioner. But it is too much to expect that different truck owners having no relation with each other either as partners or any other legally subsisting jural relationship of association of persons would be liable to pay only one set of court fee simply because they have joined as petitioners in one petition. Each one has his own cause of action arising out of the liability to pay tax individually and the petition of each one would be a separate and independent petition and each such person would be liable to pay legally payable court fee on his petition. It would be a travesty of law if one were to hold that as each one uses high way, he has common cause of action with the rest of the truck pliers. We have also perused the relevant part of full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Umesh Chandra's case (Supra) which is as follows: Where a single writ petition by an association or by more than one person is maintainable, only one set of court fees would be payable. The levy of court fees will not depend on the number of persons who have joined in the writ petition. But, where a single writ petition is not validly maintainable, but nonetheless several persons join in it, then each petitioner will have to pay court fee separately as if he had filed a separate writ petition. In such cases the writ petition may not, in the discretion of the court, be dismissed outright. The defect of misjoinder of petitioners can be cured by required each petitioner to pay separate court fees.
(3.) KEEPING in view the ratio of the full Bench of the High Court and the Supreme Court it is clear that legally payable court fee has not been paid by the petitioner. Therefore, he is given the last opportunity to pay appropriate court fee on the basis of the ratio of such Judgment by tomorrow i.e. 23.9.2010. Subject to payment of court fee, the matter will be taken up in due course.;