(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 4249 OF 1999 Marathwada Sarvashramik Sanghatna, through Shri B.K. Panchal, Vice-President, Branch Office, Nanded, District : Nanded. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, (through Government Pleader, Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad). 2. The Deputy Director, Social Forestry, Nanded (through Mr. B.B. Yenge, Special Counsel, appointed by the Social Forestry Department, Nanded). .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. A.S. Shelke, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.K. Shelke, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mr. B.B. Yenge, Special Counsel, for respondent no.2 (Absent). ........................ (2) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 17TH AUGUST 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 21st July 1999, passed by the Vice Chairman, Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad, in Miscellaneous Application Stamp No. 1091/1999, to the extent, it directs payment of court fees of Rs. 50/- per member of the petitioner / institution. 2. The petitioner had initially filed Writ Petition No. 1259/1991, challenging the notice of retrenchment issued by the respondent no.2. However, on establishment of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, the said Writ Petition came to be transferred to the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad. In the said petition, the aforesaid order came to be passed. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petition. 3. Mr. A.S. Shelke, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that when the petition, which was filed before this Court, was entertained, the requisite court fees was already (3) paid and, as such, there was no justification with the learned Tribunal, in issuing the directions which have been issued. 4. We have perused Rule 7 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1988. Perusal of Rule 7 would reveal, that where the Tribunal permits a single application to be filed, either by more than one person or by an Association, the fee payable shall be rupees fifty. Admittedly, when Writ Petition No. 1259/1991 was transferred to the Tribunal, it had already been entertained by this Court and the petitioner was permitted to file the said petition. In that view of the matter, we find that in view of proviso to Rule 7 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1988, the requisite court fees was only Rs. 50/-. As such, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable in law. 5. The petition is, therefore, allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "B". However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp4249