9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (11) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Karnataka Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 read with sub-sees. (3) and (4) of Section 6 of that Act, each of the petitioners, in the present writ petition, is liable to pay thereon a separate court-fee of ₹ 100, as if he had presented a separate writ petition. Appeal dismissed. - - - - - Dated:- 4-11-1981 - D Chandrashekar And N Venkatachala, JJ. JUDGMENT N. Venkatachala, 1. By consent of learned. counsel, this appeal was treated as having been posted for hearing and we heard them. 2. This appeal is from the order dated 31-8-1981 of Chandrakantaraj Mrs, J. in writ petition of Ramesh Pande and others of 1981 regarding the court-fee payable on that petition. The petitioners therein have presented this appeal and for the sake of convenience, they will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioners. 3. Petitioners, thirteen in number, who are individually engaged in vending liquor in different towns of Karnataka, presented a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, impugning the constitutional validity of new Section 6-11 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, substituted by the Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1981 (hereinafter r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al individual relief, consequential or otherwise, is sought for in the petition - 7. Shri Kashinathrao Patil, learned Counsel for the appellants petitioners contended that the petitioners have a common interest in the subject matter of controversy in the writ petition inasmuch as they have all challenged therein the constitutional validity of the impugned taxing provision and that this is not a case where each of them has a separate and distinct interest in such subject matter. He maintained that it is sub-r. (2) of Rule 7 of the Rules and not sub-rule (1) thereof, as it stood when the writ petition was presented which governed the matter. He strongly relied on the Explanation to sub rule (2) and submitted that in view of that Explanation, the petitioners must be regarded as having a common interest in the subject matter of controversy in the writ petition because, as contemplated therein, if the impugned taxing provision is declared to be invalid in a writ petition presented by only one of the petitioners, such declaration would ensure to the benefit of all other petitioners therein even if they had not joined as such petitioners. Sri Patil further contended that in view of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay the court-fee thereon. 12. The above ruling was followed by this Court in Mount Corporation v. Director of Industries (AIR 1965 Mys 143 : 1964-1 Mys LJ 513). There the petitioners had sought to challenge in one writ petition the actions of the State Government on the basis of which their applications for licence of stainless steel. were rejected. The Court held that each of the petitioners had distinct and separate interest as distinguished from common or joint interest, in the subject matter of controversy in the writ petition and hence could not maintain a common or joint writ petition. 13. In Chandmal v. State , petitioners had filed a joint writ petition praying for a mandamus restraining the State of Rajasthan from enforcing the levy imposed upon them by the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961. Dave,C. J., who spoke for the Bench, said that the injury which each of the petitioners might suffer by the impugned levy, could only be said to be separate and not common. 14. In Vasudevan v. C. S. Co-operative Bank, petitioners had filed. a writ petition challenging a decision of the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal. On the question of court-fee payable on such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision is declared to be unconstitutional in a writ petition presented by one of them, that provision cannot be enforced against other petitioners even if they had not joined as petitioners because of the deemed meaning given by the explanation to the term 'common interest'. Shri Kashinathrao is right in relying on that explanation to contend that the petitioners should be regarded as having a common interest in the subject-matter of controversy in the writ petition and that hence they are entitled to present a single writ petition. 17. But, what was argued by the learned Additional Government Advocate was this Even if the deemed meaning given to common interest in the explanation to sub rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Rules, has enabled the present petitioners to present a single or common or joint writ petition under sub rule (2) thereof, challenging the impugned taxing provision, it does not, by itself, relieve them of their liability to pay the aggregate amount of the court-fees payable by each of the petitioners on that petition as required under sub-section (3) read with sub s. (4) of S. 6 of the Act. The argument of the learned Additional Government Advocate in our view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ither as partners or any other legally subsisting jural relationship of association of person 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 per son would be liable to pay legally pay able court-fee on his petition. It would be a travesty of law if one were to hold that as each one uses a high way, he has common cause of action with the rest of truck pliers . The above pronouncement of the Supreme Court in our view, puts it beyond doubt that each of the petitioners in the present writ petition, has his own distinct and separate cause of action arising out of his liability to pay the tax individually under the impugned taxing provision. Since the present writ petition embraces more than one of such causes of action and separate relief's sought therein, namely, to restrain the respondents from enforcing the impugned taxing provision against each of the petitioners, are based on them (such causes of action), it (the present writ petition) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
