RAM AWTAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

(2.) Learned Standing Counsel opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that there is separate cause of action and claim of each of the petitioners is regarding the regularisation and as such separate Court-fees have to paid and rightly the report was made by the Taxing Officer and as such the petitioners have to pay separate Court-fees.

(3.) Considered the submission of learned Counsel for the parties. In the case of Saroja Nand Jha , the petitioners were 14 in numbers, they were residing in the Quarters in Industrial Housing Colony and consequent to the closure of the factory and without notice, the complaint was filed under section 6(13) of the Indian Companies Act. The writ petitions were filed against the complaints by the petitioners and in that case, it was decided by the Division Bench of this Court that the petitioners can maintain one writ petition on the payment of one set of Court-fees as there was a joint interest in the cause of action.