Joint Petitions Seeking Individual Relief Must Pay Court Fees 'Per Petitioner': Bombay High Court

"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 ‘same’ or ‘common’ cause is sought to be espoused in a petition filed by multiple Petitioners, payment of one set of court fees would suffice." Bombay High Court, in a significant order, has clarified the vexed issue of court fee payments in joint petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that while the High Court may permit multiple petitioners to join in a single petition for the sake of convenience, this does not grant a blanket exemption from paying court fees for each individual beneficiary. The Court underscored that when a petition seeks relief that accrues as an individual benefit to each petitioner, the Registry is duty-bound to insist upon the payment of court fees "per petitioner."

Judicial Convenience vs. Fiscal Liability

The application was moved by an advocate who sought a declaration that court fees prescribed under Entry 1(f) of Schedule II of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959, should be levied 'per petition' rather than 'per petitioner'. The applicant argued that the statute, being a fiscal one, must be interpreted strictly, and since the words "per petitioner" are absent from the Entry, the Registry’s practice of demanding separate fees constitutes an erroneous application of the law. He contended that such a demand forces litigants into unnecessary financial burdens and leads to the rejection of petitions on technical grounds.

Determining the Yardstick for Court Fees

The primary issue before the Court was whether the term "petition" in Entry 1(f)(ii) of Schedule II signifies a fixed fee regardless of the number of signatories, or if it implies a fee for each person seeking an individual remedy. The Court was further tasked with delineating the circumstances under which multiple petitioners could join a single petition without being liable for multiple sets of court fees.

Court Distinguishes Between Common and Individual Interests

The Court observed that the Maharashtra Court Fees Act is a fiscal statute intended to generate public revenue to offset the costs of judicial administration. Justice Marne noted that the facility of filing a joint petition is a procedural convenience recognized by the judiciary to save paper, space, and effort, not a statutory right to circumvent tax obligations. The court held that the absence of the specific phrase "per petitioner" in the statute does not permit petitioners to collectively bypass the fee structure when their claims are essentially separate and independent.

"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 ‘same’ or ‘common’ cause is sought to be espoused in a petition filed by multiple Petitioners... payment of one set of court fees would suffice," the Court observed.

Application of the 'Individual Cause of Action' Test

The Court extensively reviewed precedents, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mota Singh vs. State of Haryana, affirming that if petitioners have no jural relationship and possess independent causes of action, they are liable to pay separate court fees. Justice Marne provided illustrative scenarios: where ten plaintiffs challenge a common trial court injunction, the cause of action is unified, and single fees suffice. Conversely, in service matters or pension disputes where each petitioner stands to gain an individual monetary or status-based benefit, the petition must be treated as a bundle of individual claims.

Clarifying the Registry's Practice

The Court ultimately held that in the present case, where multiple petitioners sought individual pensionary benefits and arrears, the nature of the claim was inherently individual. Consequently, each petitioner was liable to pay the prescribed fee under Entry 1(f)(ii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act. The Court concluded that the Registry’s insistence on "per petitioner" fees is valid whenever the outcome of the petition results in specific, individual benefits, thereby preventing the misuse of joint filing procedures to cause a loss to the State exchequer.

Date of Decision: 25 August 2026