# Lalta Prasad and others v. Housing Commissioner U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2010) 3 ILRA 1357
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-10-08
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 63621 of 2009
- **Bench:** S.P. Mehrotra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lalta-prasad-and-others-v-housing-commissioner-u-p-and-another-41802
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Court Fee Act-Section 5-More than 35
person-Seeking
direction
for
the
authority concern- to -accept house rent
as per direction of Court-stamp reporter
reported
deficiency
of
court
fee
separately-Held-act of authority offect in
general-common question of fact and
law envolve-for consideration case fallunder category(A) of principle No Ihence even more than single person
jointly challenging such act-Single Court
fee payable sufficient.

Held: Para 22

From a perusal of the averments made in
the Writ Petition, it is evident that the
petitioners are aggrieved by the same
act
of
the
Additional
Labour
Commissioner, namely, refusal to accept
the rent in respect of the quarters
allotted to the petitioners. The act of the
Additional Labour Commissioner affects
the petitioners in general. The challenge
to the said act of the Additional Labour
Commissioner by all the petitioners is on
the basis of the same facts, namely, the
orders passed by this Court in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition 6373 of 1991 filed by the
Workmen living in the labour colony at
Kanpur. The reliefs sought in the Writ
Petition is regarding the said act of the
Additional Labour Commissioner. Hence,
the right to seek relief, if any, arises to
the petitioners from the same act of the
Additional
Labour
Commissioner.
Further, common questions of law and
fact are involved in such a situation.
Hence, such a case falls in category (A)
of Principle No. 1, mentioned above.
Therefore,
in
case
more
than
one
petitioner joins in a single Writ Petition
challenging the said act, only a single set
of Court Fee is required to be paid.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1981 SC 298 (paragraph 63), AIR 1984
Allahabad 46 (F.B.) (paragraph 34 and 36),
(1994) 2 UPLBEC 1228 (D.B.).

## Text

3 All] Lalta Prasad and others V Housing Commissioner U.P. and another
1357
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.10.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.P. MEHROTRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 63621 of 2009

Lalta Prasad and others
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Housing Commissioner U.P. and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pooja Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Court Fee Act-Section 5-More than 35
person-Seeking
direction
for
the
authority concern- to -accept house rent
as per direction of Court-stamp reporter
reported
deficiency
of
court
fee
separately-Held-act of authority offect in
general-common question of fact and
law envolve-for consideration case fallunder category(A) of principle No Ihence even more than single person
jointly challenging such act-Single Court
fee payable sufficient.

Held: Para 22

From a perusal of the averments made in
the Writ Petition, it is evident that the
petitioners are aggrieved by the same
act
of
the
Additional
Labour
Commissioner, namely, refusal to accept
the rent in respect of the quarters
allotted to the petitioners. The act of the
Additional Labour Commissioner affects
the petitioners in general. The challenge
to the said act of the Additional Labour
Commissioner by all the petitioners is on
the basis of the same facts, namely, the
orders passed by this Court in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition 6373 of 1991 filed by the
Workmen living in the labour colony at
Kanpur. The reliefs sought in the Writ
Petition is regarding the said act of the
Additional Labour Commissioner. Hence,
the right to seek relief, if any, arises to
the petitioners from the same act of the
Additional
Labour
Commissioner.
Further, common questions of law and
fact are involved in such a situation.
Hence, such a case falls in category (A)
of Principle No. 1, mentioned above.
Therefore,
in
case
more
than
one
petitioner joins in a single Writ Petition
challenging the said act, only a single set
of Court Fee is required to be paid.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1981 SC 298 (paragraph 63), AIR 1984
Allahabad 46 (F.B.) (paragraph 34 and 36),
(1994) 2 UPLBEC 1228 (D.B.).

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.)

Order on

Objection, filed under section 5 of
the Court Fees Act, 1870 against the
Report/order of the Taxing Officer dated
10.11.2009 as well as the Report of the
Stamp Reporter dated 29.10.2009.

1. It appears that the present writ
petition, whrein 35 persons have joined as
petitioners, was placed before the Stamp
Reporter for getting the same reported. The
Court Fee paid on the Writ Petition is Rs.
100/-while Rs. 5/- has been paid as Court
Fee on the Stay Application. The Stamp
Reporter in his Report dated 29.10.2009
reported that there was deficiency of Rs.
3570/- in Court Fee paid on the Writ
Petition and the Stay Application. The said
Report was evidently given by the Stamp
Reporter on the ground that separate Court
Fee was payable by each of the 35
petitioners in respect of the Writ Petition
and the Stay Application.

2. The learned counsel for the
petitioners objected to the said Report of
1358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
the Stamp Reporter whereupon the matter
was placed before the Taxing officer.

3. The Taxing Officer by his Report/
order dated 10.11.2009 has agreed with the
Report of the Stamp Reporter holding that
each
petitioner
has
separate
and
independent cause of action and has to pay
separate Court Fee. Accordingly, the
Taxing Officer has directed the petitioners
to make good the deficient Court Fee as
per the Report of the Stamp Reporter.

4. Thereafter, Objections under
Section 5 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 have
been filed on behalf of the petitioners
against the said Report/ order of the Taxing
Officer dated 10.11.2009 and the Report of
the Stam Reporter dated 29.10.2009.

5. The Stamp Reporter thereafter put
a Note dated 20.11.2009, interallia, stating
that the matter be placed before the Court.
The Writ Petition was presented on
20.11.2009.

6. On 24.11.2009, Hon'ble S.U.
Khan, J. passed the following order:

"Question of payment of court fees is
not being decided finally at this stage.
Taxing Officer has reported that there is
deficiency in court fees and each of the 35,
petitioners should pay separate court fees.

Let the matter be placed before the
Hon'ble Judge, who is nominated to hear
the objection against such orders passed
by Taxing Officer.

Meanwhile, issue notice pending
admission to the respondents."

7. Pursuant to the said order dated
24.11.2009, the aforesaid Objections filed
on behalf of the petitioners under Section 5
of the Court Fees Act, 1870, have been
placed before me.

8. For deciding the question of Court
Fee, relevant allegations made in the Writ
Petition may be noted.

9. It is, interalia, alleged in the Writ
Petition
that
the
petitioners
were
employees in M/S Triveni Engineering
Limited, and were living in the quarters
constructed by the State Government under
the U.P. Industrial Housing Act, 1955; and
that on the closure of M/S Triveni
Engineering Limited and its shifting to
some other part of the state, the petitioners
got themselves engaged in other factories
wherein production was carried on in
Naini, Allahabad: and that the rent of one
room tenement was fixed at Rs. 10/- per
month while rent in respect of two room
tenement was fixed at Rs. 17.50 per
month; and that in 1988, the petitioners
were asked to vacate the quarters, and
several notices were issued to the
petitioners, which were challenged in a
Writ Petition before this Court; and that
this Court passed a Stay Order Staying the
eviction of the petitioners from the quarters
in their possession: and that since then, the
petitioners have been living in the quarters
and they had been paying rent regularly;
and that by the order dated 29.11.1990, the
State Government enhanced the monthly
rent of the aforesaid quarters from Rs. 10/-
and Rs. 17.50 to Rs. 235/- per month; and
that the Workmen living in the colonies in
Kanpur filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
6373
of
1991
before
this
Court
Challenging
the
said
order
dated
29.11.1990, and this Court passed a Stay
Order
dated
31.3.1992
staying
the
operation of the order dated 29.11.1990
enhancing the rent of the quarters and
3 All] Lalta Prasad and others V Housing Commissioner U.P. and another
1359
further staying the eviction of the
Workmen from the quarters in their
possession: and that the said Civil
Misc.Writ Petition No. 6373 of 1991 filed
by the Workmen living in the colonies at
Kanpur was decided by this Court by the
judgement dated 19.2.2009; and that while
dismissing the writ Petition, this Court
directed that the order dated 29.11.1990
would be enforced with effect from the
date of the said judgment dated 19.2.2009,
and the arrears would not be recovered
from the labourers staying in the labour
colony; and that the petitioners herein have
been approaching the representative of the
Additional
Labolur
Comkissioer
for
depositing
the
rent
but
the
said
representative has begun refusing to accept
the
rent;
and
that
the
petitioners
approached
the
Additiional
Labour
Commissioner but he insisted and that the
petitioners are continuing to live in the
quarters allotted to them; and that it is
necessary that the respondents be directed
to accept the monthly rent as being paid by
the petitioners in the past years and not to
refuse accepting the same.

On the basis of the allegations made
in the Writ Petitiion, the petitioners have
made the following prayers:

"(i) to issue a suitable writ direction
or order or a writ in the nature of
mandamus to accept rent from the
petitioners at the rate at which they had
been paid in the past and which the
respondents accepted earlier, but are now
refusing to accept the same.

(ii) to issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus or any other writ direction or
order commanding the respondents not to
vacate the petitioners from the quarters
which they are occupying on account of
their failure to pay the rent at the
enhanced rate.

(iii) to issue any othe writ direction or
order or grant such other and further relief
as may be deemed fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.

(iv) to award for costs."

10. I have heard Shri K.P. Agrawal,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Miss.
Pooja Srivastava, learned Counsel for the
petitioners.

11. It is submitted by Shri K.P.
Agrawal,
learned
Senior
Counsel
appearing for the petitioners that the cause
of action in respect of all the petitioners is
non-acceptance of rent. As the cause of
action in respect of all the petitioners is
identical,
joint
Writ
Petition
is
maintainable. Shri Agrawal has further
referred to the Stay Order dated 31.3.1992
passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
6373 of 1991, and the judgment dated
19.2.2009 whereby the said Writ Petition
was dismissed with certain directions. A
copy of the judgment dated 19.2.2009
passed in the said Writ Petition was also
submitted for perusal of the Court during
arguments.

12. Shri K.P. Agrawal submits that in
view of the cause of action as pleaded in
the Writ Petition, one set of Court Fee is
payable, and the Report/ Order of the
Taxing Officer as also the Report of the
Stamp Reporter requiring payment of
separate Court Fee in respect of each
petitioner, are nor correct.

13. Shri K.P. Agrawal, learned
Senior
Counsel
appearing
for
the
1360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
petitioners has relied upon the following
decisions:

1.
Akhil
Bharatiya
Soshit
Karamchari Sangh (Railway) represented
by its Assistant General Secretary on
behalf of the Asson. Etc. Vs. Union of
India and others, AIR 1981 SC 298
(paragraph 63).

2. Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar and
others Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti,
Bharthana and another, AIR 1984
Allahabad 46 (F.B.) (paragraphs 34 and
36).

14. I have considered the submissions
made by Shri K.P. Agrawal, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioners.

15. In order to appreciate the
submissions, it is necessary to refer to
certain judicial decisions including those
cited by Shri K.P. Agrawal wherein the
principles regarding payment of Court Fee
in case where more than one petitioner
joins in a single Writ Petition have been
considered.

16. In Mota Singh and others etc.
etc. Vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR
1981 SC 484, different truck owners
having no relation with each other either as
partners or any other legally subsisting
jural relationship of association of persons,
joined as petitioners in one Writ Petition in
respect of the impugned tax, and paid only
one set of Court Fee. Their Lordships of
the Supreme Court held that where every
owner of a truck plying his truck for
transport of goods has a liability to pay tax
impugned in the Writ Petition, each one
has his own independent cause of action
arising out of the liability to pay tax
individually and the Writ 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. Relevant portion of the
decision
of
the
Supreme
Court
is
reproduced below (paragraph 1 of the said
AIR):

"We have carefully gone through the
office report prepar3ed 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 modeled tha title clause
of the petitions as may indicate that the
payment of the legally payable court fee
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 cout fee would be payable depending
upon the legtal 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 one would be a separate and
independent petition and each such person
would be liable to pay legally payable
3 All] Lalta Prasad and others V Housing Commissioner U.P. and another
1361
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 truck
pliers."

17. In Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar
case (Supra), relied upon by Shri K.P.
Agrawal,
learned
Senior
Counsel
appearing for the petitioners, five questions
were referred by a Division Bench of this
Court to the Larger Bench. The Full Bench
answered the five questions as under
(paragraph 45 of the said AIR):

"45. Our answer to the referred
questions is as follows:-

Q. 1- whether an association of
persons, registered or unregistered, can
maintain a petition under Article 226 of the
constitution for the enforcement of the
right of its members as distinguished from
the enforcement of its own rights?

A. 1-The position appears to be that
an association of persons, registered or
unregistered, can file a petition under
Article 226 for enforcement of the rights
of its members as distinguished from the
enforcement of its own rights-

1. In case members of such an
association are themselves unable to
approach the court by reason of poverty,
disability or socially or economically
disadvantaged position ("Little Indians").

(2). In case of a public injury leading
to public interest litigation: provided the
association has some concern deeper than
that of a wayfarer or a busybody, i.e., it
has a special interest in the subject
matter.

(3). Where the rules or regulations of
the association specifically authorize it to
take legal proceedings on behalf of its
members, so that any order passed by the
court in such proceedings will be binding
on the members.

In other cases an association,
whether
registered
or
unregistered,
cannot maintain a petition under Article
226 for the enforcement or protection of
the rights of its members, as distinguished
from the enforcement of its own rights.

Q. 2 Whether a single writ petition
under Article 226 of the constitution is
maintainable on behalf of more than one
petitioner, not connected with each other
as partners or those who have no other
legally subsisting jural relationship where
the questions of law and fact, involved in
the petition, are common?

A. 2 A single writ petition under Art.
226 of the Constitution by more than one
petitioner, not connected with each other
as partners or any other legally subsising
jural relationship, is maintainable where
the right to relief arises from the same act
or transaction and there is a common
question of law or fact or where though
the right of claim does not arise from the
same act or transaction, the petitioners
are jointly interested in the cause or
causes of action.

Q.3. In case the answet to question
No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether only
one set of court-fees would be payable on
such petition or each such indivisual
petitioner has to pay court-fees separately?

A. 3 Where a single writ petition by
an association or by more than one
person is maintainable, ten a single set of
1362 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
court-fees would be payable. Else, each
petitioner is liable to pay separate courtfees.

Q. 4 In case answer to question No. 1
is in the negative, whether the defect of
misjoinder of several petitioners in the writ
petition can be cured by requiring each
such petitioner to pay separate court-fees?

A. 4 The technical defect of
misjoinder of petitioners can, in the
discretion of the Court, be cured by each
petitioner paying separate court-fees.

Q.
5
Whether
the
petition
is
maintainable
for
questioning
similar
actions taken by different Mandi Smitis
independently of each other in cases where
the aggrieved party seeks relief against
each
such
Committee
on
identical
grounds?

A. 5 Our answer to this question is in
the affirmative."

While discussing Question No. 2,
noted above, the Full Bench considered the
decision of the Supreme Court in Mota
Singh case (supra) and observed as under
(paragraph 28 of the said AIR):

"28. It appears to us that according
to this decision a joint writ petition would
be validly maintainable if there is legally
subsisting jural relationship of association
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
(1968 All LJ 210), 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."

Further, while dealing with Question
Nos, 3 and 4, mentioned above, the Full
Bench observed as under (paragraph 36 of
the said AIR):

"36. Where a single writ petition by
an association or by more than one person
is maintainable as mentioned above, only
one set of court-fees would be payable. The
levy of court-fee 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
the principle laid down in Mota Singh's
case (AIR 1981 SC 484) will apply;
namely, 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 requiring each petitioner to pay
separate court-fees."

18. In Saroja Nfand Jha and others
Vs. M/S Hari Fertilizers, Varanasi and
others, (1994) 2 UPLBEC 1228 (D.B.), a
Division Bench of this Court considered
the answere given in regard to Question
Nos. 2 and 3 by the Full Bench of this
Court in Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar
case
(supra),
and
held
as
follows
(paragraph 5 of the said UPLBEC):
3 All] Lalta Prasad and others V Housing Commissioner U.P. and another
1363

"5. According to the decision of Full
Bench, Single writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India by more
than one petitioner, not connected with
each other as partners or any other legally
subsisting
jural
relationship,
is
maintainable in two contingencies, viz. (1)
where the right to relief arises from the
same act or transaction and there is a
common question of law or fact; and (2)
where right to relief does not arise from
same act or transaction, the petitioners are
jointly interested in the cause or causes of
action, If a single writ petition by more
than one person is maintainable, then only
a single set of court-fee is required to be
paid. In other cases each petitioner has to
pay
separate
court-fees,
even
for
convenience sake one writ petition is filed
by more than one petitioner.

19. Keeping in view the proposition
laid down in the above decisions, we may
summarise
the
principles
regarding
payment of Court Fee in case where more
than one petitioner joins in a single Writ
Petition:

1. A single Writ Petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India by more
than one petitioner, not connected with
each other as partners or any other legally
subsisting
jural
relationship,
is
maintainable in following two situations:

A. Where the right to relief arises
from the same act or transaction and there
is common question of law or fact.

B. Where though right to relief does
not arise from the same act or transaction,
the petitioners are jointly interested in the
same cause or causes of action.

2. If a single Writ Petition by more
than one person is maintainable, then only
a single set of Court Fee is required to be
paid. In other cases, each petitioner has to
pay separate Court Fee, even if for
convenience sake one Writ Petition is filed
by more than one petitioner.

20. As regards the decision in Akhil
Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh
(Railway) represented by its Assistant
General Secretary on behalf of the Asson,
Etc. Vs. Union of India and others, AIR
1981 SC 298, relied upon by Shri K.P.
Agrawal,
learned
Senior
Counsel
appearing for the petitioners, it may be
mentioned that the observations made in
paragraph 63 of the said decision (as
reported in AIR) pertained to the question
of locus-standi. In this regard, reference
may also be made to paragraph 33 of the
Full Bench decision of this Court in
Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar case (supra)
(as reported in AIR) wherein the decision
of the Supreme Court in Akhil Bharatiya
soshit Karamchari Sangh case (supra),
has been considered.

21. Keeping in view the principles,
mentioned above, let us now consider the
question of deficiency in payment of court
Fee in the present case.

22. From a perusal of the averments
made in the Writ Petition, it is evident that
the petitioners are aggrieved by the same
act
of
the
Additional
Labour
Commissioner, namely, refusal to accept
the rent in respect of the quarters allotted to
the petitioners. The act of the Additional
Labour
Commissioner
affects
the
petitioners in general. The challenge to the
said
act
of the
Additional
Labour
Commissioner by all the petitioners is on
the basis of the same facts, namely, the
1364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
orders passed by this Court in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition 6373 of 1991 filed by the
Workmen living in the labour colony at
Kanpur. The reliefs sought in the Writ
Petition is regarding the said act of the
Additional Labour Commissioner. Hence,
the right to seek relief, if any, arises to the
petitioners from the same act of the
Additional Labour Commissioner. Further,
common questions of law and fact are
involved in such a situation. Hence, such a
case falls in category (A) of Principle No.
1, mentioned above. Therefore, in case
more than one petitioner joins in a single
Writ Petition challenging the said act, only
a single set of Court Fee is required to be
paid.

23. Even otherwise also, the
petitioners in such a case are jointly
interested in the cause of action, and such
a case will fall in category (B) of
Principle No. 1, mentioned above, in any
view of the matter. Hence, in case more
than one petitioner joins in a single Writ
Petition challenging such act, only a
single set of Court Fee is required to be
paid.

24. In view of the above, I am of the
opinion that the Report/Order of the
Taxing Officer dated 10.11.2009 as well
as the Report of the Stamp Reporter dated
29.10.2009 in regard to the deficiency in
payment of Court Fee are not correct. The
Report/ Order of the Taxing Officer dated
10.11.2009 is set aside. It is held that only
one set of Court-Fee is payable which has
already been paid, and the Writ Petition is
in order.

25. It is made clear that the above
discussion in the present order is only for
deciding the question of deficiency in
payment of Court Fee, and there is no
expression of any opinion in regard to the
maintainability of the Writ Petition or the
merits thereof.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.11.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 63663 of 2008

Malkhan Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vinod Sinha
Sri Mahesh Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.K.Anwar
S.C.

Intermediate
Education
Act
1921,
Chapter-III
Regulation
2-50%
Promotion Quota-in the institution in
Question including Head Clerk-Four post
of Clerk created-Head Clerk already
retired-petitioner
being
class
4th
employee-claimed appointment on class
III post under promotion Quota Denied
by D.I.O.S.-on logic out of 3 post of
junior clerks 50% of 2 post fall under
direct
recruitment-no
post
under
promotion Quota available-held-wrong
approach-statute provides to first fill
50% promotion Quota,according to logic
of D.I.O.S. Itself-even on promotion of
Head Clerk one of 3 post of junior Clerk -
two post fall under promotion quotaorder
impugned
quashed
with
consequential directions.

Held: Para 14

If the logic of the DIOS is accepted, even
then what this Court has observed would
be the correct position for the reason
that a person working on the post of