In a significant ruling addressing the levy of court fees on joint writ petitions, the Bombay High Court has clarified that court fees under Entry 1(f)(ii) of Schedule II of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959, must be paid “per petitioner” rather than “per petition” when the proceedings espouse individual causes of action or seek individual benefits. A single bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that litigants cannot use the procedural convenience of filing a joint petition to circumvent statutory fees due to the State exchequer. However, the Court clarified that where multiple petitioners share a genuinely “common cause of action” and the outcome does not yield separate, individual benefits to each petitioner, a single set of court fees will suffice.
Background of the Case
The issue arose in an Interim Application filed by advocate Satyam A. Surana, who appeared in person representing the petitioners in a disposed-of writ petition (Writ Petition No. 9463 of 2026). In that petition, 11 individual petitioners had jointly challenged an order and claimed higher pension, pensionary benefits, and arrears.
The High Court Registry had required each of the 11 petitioners to pay a separate court fee of Rs. 250/-, totaling Rs. 2,750/-. Aggrieved by this, the applicant moved an Interim Application seeking a declaration that under Entry 1(f) of Schedule II of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, court fees should be levied “per petition” rather than “per petitioner” for filings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The applicant further sought a refund of the excess court fees paid and prayed for directions to ensure a uniform practice in the Registry, complaining that litigants face financial hardship and petitions often remain under office objections due to inconsistent demands by the Registry.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing in person, Mr. Satyam A. Surana submitted that Entry 1(f)(ii) of Schedule II of the Act provides for a fixed court fee on an “Application or Petition” presented to the High Court. He argued that the statutory entry contains no words such as “per petitioner” or “for each petitioner,” and since Schedule II is expressly titled “Fixed Fees,” the fee is tied to the proceeding itself, not to the number of persons joining it. He emphasized that the Court Fees Act is a fiscal statute that must be strictly construed, citing the Supreme Court decisions in Gujarat State Financial Corporation vs. Natson Manufacturing Company (P) Limited and Others and Director of Income Tax (IT)-1, Mumbai vs. M/s. American Express Bank Ltd. He further relied upon the Bombay High Court decision in Machindra Rambhau Chavan & Ors. vs. M/s. Ahmednagar Forging Ltd. & Another, the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar and others vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bharthana and another, and the Calcutta High Court ruling in Parul Debnath & Ors. vs. Union of India and Others.
On the other hand, Ms. Leena Patil, appearing for the respondent High Court of Bombay through its Registrar General, submitted that the Registry maintains a uniform practice of charging court fees per petitioner where multiple individuals join in a single petition. She contended that when multiple petitioners join together, separate court fees are required per petitioner, relying on the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Santosh Narayan Gaikwad and another vs. The Registrar of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay and another.
Precedents Examined by the Court
Justice Marne observed that the dispute was not an adversarial litigation but concerned a procedural matter affecting litigants at large. The Court reviewed the relevant statutory framework under Schedule II, Entry 1(f)(ii), which prescribes a fixed fee of Rs. 250/- for petitions under Article 226 (for fundamental rights) or under Article 227 (noting also that Maharashtra Act 10 of 2018 proposed an enhancement to Rs. 1,250/-, but remains unnotified).
The Court extensively analyzed past judicial precedents:
- In Mota Singh and Others vs. State of Haryana and others, the Supreme Court held that where different truck owners challenged a tax, each had an independent cause of action, observing: “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 highway, he has common cause of action with the rest of truck pliers.”
- In Govindrao Atmaramji Warjurkar and another vs. The State of Maharashtra, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that when two petitioners are independently aggrieved in their separate businesses, “The petition, therefore, is not a joint petition filed by two persons but two petitions combined in one,” requiring separate court fees.
- In The Promoters and Buildings Association and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others and Md. Usman Abdul Jabbar vs. Union of India, the Division Bench had directed the Registry to insist upon member lists and certify court fees qua each member when an association claims relief for its members.
- In Santosh Narayan Gaikwad, the Division Bench clarified that while juristic persons need not pay fees per member, if an association or group approaches the court for grievances where benefits flow individually (such as 50 shop owners facing demolition or 50 employees challenging an employer), the Registry is justified in directing court fees to be paid per member or employee.
- Distinguishing Machindra Rambhau Chavan, the Court noted that in that matter, 227 complainants had together pursued a singular industrial complaint with a common cause of action, meaning separate petitions were not maintainable.
- The Court also examined the Patna High Court ruling in Shivshankar Pandey vs Union of India, the Jharkhand High Court Division Bench reference in Binod Kumar vs State of Jharkhand, the Karnataka High Court decision in M/s Gerb Vibration Control System Private Limited and others vs Assistant Labour Commissioner and Ors., the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in Amaravati Rajdhani vs State of Andhra Pradesh, and the Allahabad High Court Full Bench decision in Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar, concluding that the consistent view requires separate court fees when individual causes of action are pursued jointly.
The Court’s Analysis and Findings
Addressing the applicant’s statutory argument, the Court observed that the legislature’s omission of the words “per petitioner” in Entry 1(f)(ii) does not imply that multiple persons can file a single petition on one fee. The Court reasoned that the statutory entry primarily contemplates a petition filed by an individual litigant, whereas the mechanism of permitting multiple petitioners to join in a single petition is a procedural facility recognized by the courts for convenience:
“Filing of a joint Petition saves the other cost involved in filing multiple Petitions by similarly situated Petitioners. It also results in saving paper, space, efforts, etc. Thus, High Court may in a given circumstance allow filing of joint Petition by similarly situated multiple Petitioners. This facility of convenience made available to the litigants cannot be misused for avoiding payment of court fees.”
Addressing the strict construction of fiscal statutes, the Court stated:
“By permitting multiple persons to join in one Petition for saving cost, space, paper, etc., the High Court cannot cause loss to the State exchequer in terms of court fees. The intention of the Legislature is that when a Petition is filed by a Petitioner, he/she must pay fees prescribed in Entry 1(f)(ii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act. It is the concession granted by the Courts for filing of single Petition by multiple persons and the legislative objective cannot be permitted to be defeated while granting such permission.”
Justice Marne laid down the definitive test for court fee liability:
“In my view, the issue of payment of court fees on Petitions or Applications filed under Articles 226 or 227 of Constitution of India as per Entry 1 (f) (ii) of Schedule II of Court Fees Act needs to be decided by applying the test of ‘individual cause of action’ versus ‘same cause of action’ or the test of ‘common interest’ versus ‘individual interest’.”
To guide the Registry and litigants, the Court provided clear illustrations:
- Where a single fee suffices: If 10 plaintiffs jointly challenge an interim injunction order under Article 227 arising from a single civil suit; if multiple citizens file a writ against a municipal body for unauthorized construction on public amenity land; or if cooperative housing society members jointly seek the disqualification of a managing committee—the cause of action is common and does not confer distinct personal monetary benefits, so a single set of court fees suffices.
- Where separate fees per petitioner are mandatory: Where 10 candidates challenge an recruitment eligibility criteria to seek employment; where employees seek individual regularization or back wages; or where multiple pensioners file a joint writ claiming individual pensionary benefits and arrears.
Decision
Applying these principles to the applicant’s case, the Court observed that the 11 petitioners had approached the Court directly (not via an association) seeking individual financial benefits, higher pension, and arrears. Because the outcome would yield separate, individual benefits to each of them, each petitioner was legally liable to pay a separate court fee under Entry 1(f)(ii).
The High Court conclusively clarified:
“It is accordingly clarified that separate court fees under Entry 1(f)(ii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act is payable on a Petition filed under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India ‘per Petitioner’ and not ‘per Petition’ when individual causes of action of Petitioners are sought to be espoused in the joint Petition. Separate set of court fees would be payable ‘per Petitioner’ when the outcome of the Petition individually benefits the Petitioners. It is only in cases where ‘same’ or ‘common’ cause is sought to be espoused in a petition filed by multiple Petitioners (either individually or through association), payment of one set of court fees would suffice.”
With these observations and directions, the Court disposed of the Interim Application.
Case Title: Mr. Satyam A. Surana vs The High Court of Bombay through Registrar General
Case No.: Interim Application (Stamp) No. 22879 of 2026 in Writ Petition No. 9463 of 2026
Bench: Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Date: August 25, 2026
