Sudhir Narain - (1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, on the question regarding payment of court-fees.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the decision of the taxation officer on the payment of court-fee is erroneous in law. The facts in brief are that the petitioners were employed under the Meerut Mandal, Vikas Nigam, Meerut. The notices were issued to petitioners for retrenchment of their services. The basis of the retrenchment is alleged to be a policy decision of the Government, that the Nigam shall be closed and there was no option for the Nigam except retrenchment of the services of the petitioners There is no dispute that the appointment letters were separately issued to each of the petitioners and their services were terminated separately. These petitioners have challenged the orders of termination, which were passed separately and filed as Annexures-2 to 16 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the services of the petitioners have been terminated on the basis of the policy decision of the Government and the termination orders were issued in consequence to the said policy decision. The petitioners are entitled to file writ petition jointly and pay single court-fee.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the case of Umesh Chand, Vinod Kumar v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi, AIR 1984 Alld. 46 (FB). In this case. Full Bench, answered five questions. Question No. 2 was as follows ;- "Whether a single writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution is maintainable on behalf of more than one petitioners not connected with each other as partners or those who have no other legal subsisting jural relationship where the question of law and fact involved in the petition are common ?" THE court held that the Joint writ petition would be maintainable if there is legally subsisting jural relationship of persons between them or if they have same cause of action. THE Court observed as follows :- "It appears to us that according to this decision a joint writ petition would be validity maintainable if there is a legally subsisting Jural relationship of persons between them or if they have the same cause of action. In substance, this decision applies the same principle of procedure as was enunciated by the Full Bench of our court in Mall Singh's 'case namely, generally joinder of more than one person can be permitted in a proceeding under Art. 226 where the right to relief arises out of the same act or transaction or where the petitioners are jointly interested in the cause of action and a common question of law or fact arises. In other words, joinder of more than one person is permissible when the cause of action is the same. Such joinder may not be permissible if the cause of action is similar." In the present case the cause of action is not the same. The contract of Service of each of the petitioners was separate. The cause of action In each case is not the same, each of the petitioners have their own cause of action and none of the petitioners are related to eaoh other or there is any Jural relationship between them.;