v QM)! WW; HIéEH CUURT OF CHHA‘?”§”§I$&ARH A“? giLASRK ($.6Q 67/ \; 3 ‘ Review §jef§?i0n gPR) No. 2&1? 9f 26$? ._ VIE. Tamaskar Versus Sm‘re of Chmffisgarh & Ofhers J'uégmen+ for ‘considam‘riean. q4\ Sd/— ‘ Chief Justice ChiEf Justice h‘“3’07TUrmw~~\~\w f Han’wa Shri Diiig iEaosaheb 3eshmukh‘ J“ I W. J\-—-«r-V-:::::,L\¥\ i . . Sd/- \ Dlhp Raosaheb Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ‘ Post fer sew mama, 2007 /"\: ‘ Sd/_ Vzgvvf’ %i@" HIGH COUR‘?‘ G$ C}iHi§T’§‘§SGARH xi'aT §§U§SPUR Q5V§££§£¥Q&§§ CGRAM; HON’giE SHR! J§GS§$H EEALU‘i, £1g.CJ. & HON’3LE $HR§ {JiLii’ RAO$AHEE EESHMUKH, J. m... Review ¥etition (RR) No.2é‘32 of 213G?“ VG. ‘1“amaskar, S/o Late Shri G.Y. Advacaéa. Tamaskar, Aged. about 62 years, ‘ FETSTIGNER VE§1SES Siate of Chha‘ttisgarhg Through Secfetary', Dspariment of Urban Deveiopmgnt, D. KS. Bhawan, ‘ Mantralaya, Raipur (GS) KE§P§N§ENTS 1 4 Chamda, The President District Municipal Durg (CG) Councis, Bhnai- l ‘ d I‘he Chief Executive Officer, Municipai CounciL Bhiiai — Charade, Distt Burg x (as). ‘3 , Shri Asutosh Singh Kachhawaha, eeunse: and 3. J U €3§J§1§§J weiivered on 30% Gctoher,20€§?) Judgment of the Court was Hon’bie Jagéisn Enaiga, enigil é. Aggn‘eveci by the resulf and effect of the order dated 20-04—2007, passed in Writ Appear ho 48i20-D7, the petitioner who is a registered member for respondent Nose 2 r M The foliowing deiivered by 4. Niharika Vyavsayik Parisar, Kaiyan Samiti, Bhi!ai-3, Thmugh The President Shri Ganesh Ram Chandrakar, Sfa 8hr§ Chanduiai' Chandrakar, aged about 35 years, Occupation: Bueiness, R/e vmage and PO. Queri, Tahsik Patan, Distt. Durg (CG). Review Petmon Presem : Shn' VG. Tamaskar, pei‘iiioner in persun. Shri V‘VS. Murthy, Deputy Advocate General, for the State! -l cf State Bar Councii of Chhattisgarh havmg its regisiya’zion numer as CGESD/i 982iAdvocate has med ihxs review petition. To reguiate Wing of the petitions by the Societies i Unions and payment of‘Couri fee, the Regie'trar General of this i—Hgh Couzt on 03434—236? issued the following circular : fictrguta; No.8466 dated 03/04129U7l As provided under Rule 126 of toe High Court of Ch'hattisgarh Rulea 2365 with regard to procedure for filing speciaiiy having regard to computerization requirement following circular may be issued. Petitions filed by several persons having similar but separate and distinct interest in the subject matter of controversy involving common questions of law and facts may fiie a common petition but each petitioner shaii pay a separate ii’ the petition is tited byion behait of a SocietyIUnion then the foiiowing patticulars have to be mentioeed :- court fee. That the societyiunion has been registered under the Societies Registration Act and, if registered, that the petition has been accompanied by certificate ct registration, certified That the societyz‘union passed any resolution empowering the person through whom the petition has been flied and that the petition is accompanied by true copy of resolution, and it the petition has been tiied through a power of attorney holder, that it has been accompanied by a copy ot’ such power of attorney, ceititied as true copy. as true copy. The number of members ot‘ the societyiunion. Each member of the Society/Union shaii pay a separate Fort ail other purposes, it shall be treated as a singie petition and the ottice shail assign one number, Such common writ petition shalt be in the format as prescribed in the principal Ruie and shali be supported by an affidavit of any one of the petitioners. For such common petition one Vakaiatnama with one set of Court Fee stamp shali be sufficient. " Court Fee. i b After the above circuiar was §ssued, on 28-04—2007 the writ appea§ came up for heam’lg on the Board Wherem it was ordered that no society has any fundamental right, therefore, the writ appeai filed on beharf of the socieiy is not maintainable, However, iearned counsei for ihe appetlant conceded and prayed for permission to impiead the members of the society and in t‘ne process had also agreed to pay Court fee on behaif of each and every member of the Society. Therefore, the Court had issued a direction to impieao’ aii the members of the society as parties to the proceedings and had further directed to pay necessary Court fee by every member. t The main grievance of the applicant in this review petition ts that in light of the order dated 20.042007” now even if one petition is fiied with a common cause and common interest of aii the memeers of the societyiunion by the saro‘ organisatton, every individuai member wouid be iiabie to be impieaded as party and to pay separate Court fee. We have given anxious consideration and crtrcaiiy examined the matter and we are of the considered opinion that the members of the societylunion have jurai reiationship and once there is a idi'ai reiationship between the parties who have approached this Court with common interest and cause, then it cannot be said to be a matter of evading Court tee by tiiing one petition by the members of the society. Whenever in a given case the Members of the society/union have a jurai-reiationshtp having common, equai and equitabie rights with common interest & cause, they need not pay separate Court fee. Therefore, it wouid not be fair to caii upon such members to pay separate court tee. The Hon’bie Apex Court had examined a matter regarding payment of separate Court tee by every petitioner in the case of Wiota Stngh 8. others Vs. State of Haryana d others - (Mm $981 St:— 434}\wherein it has been observed that number of transporters iotned hands together and had fiied a petition opposing certain taxes and it was heid that every owner of a truck piying his truck tor transport of goods has a iiabiiity to pay tax impugned in the petition, each one has his own independent cause of action. A firm as AW i n i 4,“ understood pnder the Partnership Act or a Company as undersieod under ihe mdian Companies Act, if it is enti‘iled in law to commence action either in the firm, name or in the Company’s name, can do so by iiiing a petition for the benefit of ihe Company or the partnership and in such a case court fee wouioi be payabie depending upon the legai status of the pe‘ritionerr But it is too much to expect inat ciii‘i'erent truck owners having no reiation with each other either as partners or any other legaiiy subsisting jurai reiationship of association of persons would be iiabie to pay oniy one set of’oourt fee simpiy 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 individuaiiy and the petition of each one would be a separate and independent petition and each such person woutoi ‘loe liable to pay legaiiy payable court tee on his petition. it wouid be a travesty of law if one were to hold that as each one who uses high way‘ has common cause ot action with the rest of truck piiersl in light of the above, the review petition is disposed of with the clarification that whenever in a given case, the members ot' the societyfunion have jural—relationship having common, equai and equitabie rights, tor protection of such rights they have a common interest & cause, if they approach L this Court, ail of them need not be impieaded except the authorised person and they need not pay separate Court tee as welt, Sd/_ i SC“ Chief Justice J07 i Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge