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.