1970 (4) TMI 164 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of a single writ petition by several petitioners when a common question of law or fact is involved and the petitioners are jointly interested in the cause of action.
2. Maintainability of a single writ petition filed by a petitioner against several respondents for quashing a common order passed against several persons when a common question of law or fact is involved and those persons are jointly interested in the subject-matter under dispute.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Maintainability of a single writ petition by several petitioners when a common question of law or fact is involved and the petitioners are jointly interested in the cause of action.

The court examined whether a single writ petition is maintainable at the instance of several petitioners when a common question of law or fact is involved, and the petitioners are jointly interested in the cause of action. The court noted that while rules under Article 225 of the Constitution regulate proceedings under Article 226, they do not specify who may be joined as petitioners or respondents in a single writ petition. However, statutory rules do not prohibit the filing of a single writ petition by several petitioners against a respondent or by a petitioner against several respondents when it involves a common question of law or fact and is directed against a common order.

The court referenced Order I, Rule 1 and Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.), which allow multiple plaintiffs or defendants to join in one suit if the right to relief arises out of the same act or transaction and common questions of fact or law would arise if separate suits were brought. The court considered whether these provisions apply to writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The court reviewed several precedents, including *in re Atmakuri Gopalakrishna Rao* (1957), where it was held that writ petitions are civil proceedings, and the provisions of the C.P.C. apply as far as they are consistent with the nature and scope of the proceedings. The court also referred to *Annam Adinarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh* (1957), where it was held that a single writ petition is maintainable if the right to relief arises from the same act or transaction and involves a common question of law or fact.

The court concluded that a single writ petition can be filed by several petitioners if the right to relief arises from the same act or transaction involving a common question of law or fact, or if the petitioners are jointly interested in the cause of action. However, separate writ petitions are required for separate and distinct rights and similar orders passed against different individuals.

Issue 2: Maintainability of a single writ petition filed by a petitioner against several respondents for quashing a common order passed against several persons when a common question of law or fact is involved and those persons are jointly interested in the subject-matter under dispute.

The court examined whether a single writ petition is maintainable by a petitioner against several respondents for quashing a common order passed against multiple persons when a common question of law or fact is involved. The court referred to several cases, including *Tobacco Merchants Association v. Market Committee* (1957) and *Bhagvantha Reddy v. R.D.O., Guntur* (1963), where it was held that a single writ petition is maintainable if the cases of the petitioners are almost identical and raise the same questions of fact and law.

The court also reviewed *Chandra Bhan Gasain v. State of Orissa* (Supreme Court), which supported the maintainability of a single writ petition when challenging the validity of various assessment orders. The court noted that the general rule is that a single writ petition can be filed if the right to relief arises from the same act or transaction involving a common question of law or fact, or if the petitioners are jointly interested in the cause of action.

The court rejected the argument that a common order disposing of several appeals should be treated as several independent orders combined into one. The court emphasized that writ proceedings are civil proceedings, and the provisions of the C.P.C. apply as far as they are consistent with the nature and scope of the proceedings.

Conclusion:

The court held that a single writ petition is maintainable by several petitioners when the cause of action arises out of the same act or transaction involving a common question of law or fact and out of a common order. Similarly, a single writ petition can be filed by a petitioner against several respondents if the right to relief arises out of the same act or transaction involving a common question of law or fact and out of a common order. The court allowed the writ appeal and overruled the preliminary objection, holding that the writ petitions were maintainable in law. The cases were directed to be listed before a single judge.