Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    Covid IA

    Uploaded by

    bipul pandey
    1) 49 petitioners were terminated from service by a single order. 2) All petitioners are seeking reinstatement and regularization in service through this writ petition, so their claims are identical. 3) Prior court rulings have established that only one set of court fees is required when the interests and claims of multiple petitioners are common or similar, as is the case here with one termination order affecting all petitioners. 4) Therefore, the petitioners are requesting that the court ignore defects pointed out regarding payment of separate court fees for each petitioner, as precedent establishes that one set of fees is sufficient given the common nature of their claims.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Covid IA

    Uploaded by

    bipul pandey
    14 views4 pages
    1) 49 petitioners were terminated from service by a single order. 2) All petitioners are seeking reinstatement and regularization in service through this writ petition, so their claims are identical. 3) Prior court rulings have established that only one set of court fees is required when the interests and claims of multiple petitioners are common or similar, as is the case here with one termination order affecting all petitioners. 4) Therefore, the petitioners are requesting that the court ignore defects pointed out regarding payment of separate court fees for each petitioner, as precedent establishes that one set of fees is sufficient given the common nature of their claims.

    Original Title

    covid IA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) 49 petitioners were terminated from service by a single order. 2) All petitioners are seeking reinstatement and regularization in service through this writ petition, so their claims are identical. 3) Prior court rulings have established that only one set of court fees is required when the interests and claims of multiple petitioners are common or similar, as is the case here with one termination order affecting all petitioners. 4) Therefore, the petitioners are requesting that the court ignore defects pointed out regarding payment of separate court fees for each petitioner, as precedent establishes that one set of fees is sufficient given the common nature of their claims.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    14 views4 pages

    Covid IA

    Uploaded by

    bipul pandey
    1) 49 petitioners were terminated from service by a single order. 2) All petitioners are seeking reinstatement and regularization in service through this writ petition, so their claims are identical. 3) Prior court rulings have established that only one set of court fees is required when the interests and claims of multiple petitioners are common or similar, as is the case here with one termination order affecting all petitioners. 4) Therefore, the petitioners are requesting that the court ignore defects pointed out regarding payment of separate court fees for each petitioner, as precedent establishes that one set of fees is sufficient given the common nature of their claims.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

    (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)


    I.A. No. ---------------------- of 2024
    IN
    C.W.J.C. No. 2752 of 2022

    Rajeev Kumar & Others -------------Petitioners


    Versus
    The State of Bihar &Others---------Respondents

    To
    The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.Vinod Chandran, Hon’ble The
    Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Patna and his
    companion Justices of the said Hon’ble Court.
    The humble petition on behalf of the
    Petitioners;
    MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
    1. That this Interlocutory Application is being filed praying
    to condone the defect pointed by the registry of this Hon'ble
    Court with regard to payment of separate court fee for all the
    petitioners. The relevant facts and legal precedents in this case
    are being brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court.

    2. That in the instant case there are altogether 49 petitioners


    and all the petitioners were terminated from service by a single
    order dated 22-6-2021 passed by Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief
    Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur.

    3. That in the instant case all the petitioners pray for


    reinstatement and regularization in service.

    4. That in Ram Nandan Sharma and Others Vs. The State of


    Bihar and Others reported as 2000 (3) PLJR 345 a coordinate
    Bench of this Hon'ble Court held that "the claim of all the
    Petitioners are one and the same as against the same Respondent
    authorities. As such, this Court does not find any reason for
    requiring them to pay 32 sets of additional Court-fee for the
    remaining 32 Petitioners. Defect No. (c) with respect to 32 sets
    of Court-fee wanting pointed out by the office is, thus,
    overruled".

    5. That in LPA No. 580 of 1998 (Smt. Krishna Pati Devi


    and Others Vs. The State of Bihar and Others) reported (1998) 3
    BLJR 2173 a Division Bench of Patna High Court held that
    "Having heard counsel and going through the reasons of the
    learned writ Court, we are of the opinion that whenever interest
    is common or similar whether by one stroke of pen, if the
    impugned notification can be set aside, one set of Court fee is
    only required. In the instant case, considering the relief of the
    petitioners, the relief as claimed is common. It is not that though
    by one notification their services were terminated but they have
    claimed different reliefs. This is now the common interests
    between the co-petitioners are to be judged in respect of
    payment of Court fee. This being so, we are of the opinion that
    if one set of Court fee is paid while challenging the impugned
    order in the writ petition, that is sufficient and for individual
    petitioners no separate Court fee is required".

    6. That in view of the circumstances mentioned above it is


    submitted most humbly that claim of all the petitioners are one
    and the same and against the same respondent authorities. As
    such the petitioners be allowed to pay only one set of Court fee
    and defect pointed in this regard may be ignored in the ends of
    justice.

    It is, therefore, prayed that Your Lordships


    may graciously be pleased to allow this
    application and ignore the defects pointed by
    the registry with regard to payment of
    separate court fee for all the petitioners.

    AND
    Be pleased further to pass such order/orders
    which your Lordships may deem fit and proper
    in the facts and circumstances of this case.

    And for this the Petitioners will ever pray.

    You might also like